UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

UNU-IAS Policy Report
Cities, Biodiversity and Governance:

Perspectives and Challenges of the
Implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity at the City Level
The United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNU-IAS) is a global think
tank whose mission is to advance knowledge and promote learning for policy-making
to meet the challenges of sustainable development. UNU-IAS undertakes research and
postgraduate education to identify and address strategic issues of concern for all humankind,
for governments, decision-makers, and particularly, for developing countries.
Established in 1996, the Institute convenes expertise from disciplines such as economics,
law, social and natural sciences to better understand and contribute creative solutions to
pressing global concerns, with research and programmatic activities related to current
debates on sustainable development:
Biodiplomacy Initiative
Ecosystem Services Assessment
Satoyama Initiative
Sustainable Development Governance
Education for Sustainable Development
Marine Governance
Traditional Knowledge Initiative
Science and Technology for Sustainable Societies
Sustainable Urban Futures
UNU-IAS, based in Yokohama, Japan, has two International Operating Units: the Operating
Unit Ishikawa/Kanazawa (OUIK) in Japan, and the Traditional Knowledge Initiative (TKI) in
Australia.

Jose Antonio Puppim de Oliveira
Osman Balaban
Christopher Doll
Raquel Moreno-Penaranda
Alexandros Gasparatos
Deljana Iossifova
Aki Suwa
Copyright United Nations University, 2010

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
United Nations University or the Institute of Advanced Studies.
United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies

6F, International Organizations Center
Pacifico-Yokohama 1-1-1 Minato Mirai
Nishi-ku, Yokohama, 220-8502 Japan
Tel: +81-45-221-2300 Fax: +81-45-221-2302
Email: unuias@ias.unu.edu
URL http://www.ias.unu.edu/
ISBN 978-92-808-4516-7 (pb)

ISBN 978-92-808-4517-4 (eb)
UNU-IAS/2010/No. 3
Cover Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com/Alija, Central Park

Design and Layout: Xpress Print Pte Ltd
Copy Editing: Yoshie A. Oya
Printed by Xpress Print Pte Ltd in Singapore
Printed on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper using soy-based ink
Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary........................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularly with
regards to the implementation of CBD?.................................................................. 9
2. Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity............................................................ 12
2.1 A brief history of cities in the environment............................................................ 12
2.1.1 Past............................................................................................................. 12
2.1.2 Present........................................................................................................ 13
2.1.3 Future.......................................................................................................... 13
2.2 C
onverging views in the movements for biological conservation
and urban planning.............................................................................................. 14
3. Linking Cities and Biodiversity................................................................................ 17
3.1 Biodiversity and urban well-being: provision of ecosystem services........................ 17
3.2 Major drivers of biodiversity loss and its links to urban activity............................... 18
3.2.1 Habitat destruction...................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 Pollution...................................................................................................... 18
3.2.3 Introduction of alien species........................................................................ 18
3.2.4 Overexploitation.......................................................................................... 19
3.2.5 Climate change........................................................................................... 20
3.3 Linking biodiversity loss to urban processes........................................................... 20
3.3.1 Urban development..................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Production and consumption in cities........................................................... 23
3.3.3 Trade and transportation............................................................................. 24
3.3.4 Heat stress related to the urban heat island effect........................................ 25
4. Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD........................ 27
4.1 Development and implementation of proper housing and infrastructure policies... 27
4.2 Provision of a good network of urban green spaces and functional
aquatic habitats.................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Local sustainable production methods for biodiversity in urban areas.................... 31
4.4 Improvements in public transportation and more compact cities........................... 35
4.5 Increasing awareness among urban dwellers and decision-makers........................ 36

4.6 Stronger links with national and international networks........................................ 37
5. Cities, the CBD and Governance Challenges.......................................................... 39
5.1 Obstacles to improve the governance of the CBD................................................. 40
5.1.1 Cities are not in the core discussions of CBD................................................ 40
5.1.2 CBD implementation by national governments is limited.............................. 40
5.1.3 CBD is still not mainstreamed in the cities agenda....................................... 41
5.1.4 Conceptual clarifications are needed to move the biodiversity agenda......... 41
5.1.5 C
itizens lack awareness of the importance of biodiversity and

ecosystem services....................................................................................... 41
5.1.6 T here is a lack of proper instruments to deal with biodiversity at

the city level................................................................................................ 41
5.1.7 L ack of coordination among different levels of government and

among local governments for joint action.................................................... 42
5.1.8 Differences in the challenges among cities................................................... 42
5.1.9 Political resistance for change at various levels............................................. 43
5.2 Opportunities to move the CBD agenda forward................................................... 43
5.2.1 Cities as an efficient body to protect biodiversity.......................................... 43
5.2.2 C
ities involvement to tackle global programs and

development of new instruments................................................................ 43
5.2.3 Urban dwellers tend to be more educated and environmentally sensitive..... 45
5.2.4 Policies can be more effective at the city level because of the scale.............. 45
5.2.5 O
pportunities for win-win situations between biodiversity conservation

and other benefits....................................................................................... 45
5.2.6 Convergence of the movements on biological diversity

and urban planning..................................................................................... 47
6. Conclusion................................................................................................................ 48
References ................................................................................................................... 50
Foreword
Foreword
The world is on the brink of a confounding crisis, which is brought about by a cumulating
cascade of factors such as rapid changes in our natural climatic conditions, environmental
degradation brought about by unsustainable production and consumption practices,
depletion of environmental and biological resources, and a sharp decline in various
indicators of well-being. While noting that it is our actions and, often times, inactions
that have precipitated these impending crises, it is imperative that we the citizens of our
planet should quickly come up with effective measures to mitigate the consequences
and adapt to the changes in our natural ecosystems. This would require us to pay more
attention to the enhancement and maintenance of natural resources and processes as wellfunctioning ecosystems with the diversity of resources contained therein so as to enable
sustainable production, consumption, and related livelihood activities. Obviously, this would
require inputs from various scientific, technological, and allied academic fields in terms of
innovations and radically new ideas; from business communities by fostering best practices
in the use and disposal of resources and transactions with others in the supply chain; from
civil society in fostering responsible stewardship of natural resources and social concerns;
and, from governments in terms of development and implementation of appropriate policies
that are sensitive to the needs of the diverse sections of the society they govern. And the
implications of actions by the various stakeholders need to be analysed in a timely, and,
often, anticipatory manner, in order to draw attention to benefits and concerns related to
decisions made at different levels.
In this context, I am pleased to state that the United Nations University Institute of Advanced
Studies (UNU-IAS) has been actively contributing to advancing awareness of various concerns
related to biodiversity and ecosystems among a variety of stakeholders. Our research has
straddled areas in the interface between the natural world, human aspirations, and wellbeing consequences. We have focused especially on the notion of fostering equitable
transactions between different stakeholders over the years.
This year, we are launching several new publications that are of particular relevance to
the Conference of Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The
publications examine a diverse set of topics that include, among others, the effectiveness
of implementation of national biodiversity strategies by different countries; the governance
and management of bio-cultural landscapes such as satoyama and satoumi; the status of
biodiversity in the South East Asian region; the impact of emerging biofuel technologies to
the provision of ecosystems services; scoping the role of urban centres in green development;
and underscoring the need for bridging epistemological divides between modern and
traditional world views in securing development goals and conservation priorities all of
which are topics that are of keen import to the CBDs objectives as well as to the broader
sustainable development agenda. I expect each of these publications will provide a basis to
inform discussions and facilitate designing of implementable policies in their related areas.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank our partners and collaborators for their support
in our research and capacity development activities. There are several expectations from the
outcomes of this COP, and we hope to continue our work in the future informing and
providing relevant inputs to policy-makers, academics, and practitioners alike.
Govindan Parayil,
Director, UNU-IAS and Vice-Rector, UNU
October 2010
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank some members of the Global Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity,
particularly Oliver Hillel, Andr Mader, and Peter Werner for the comments they made on
the early drafts of this document.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
City governments can contribute more to implementing the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), as the 2010 target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss set by governments
during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 is not being achieved. The
necessity for city governance to tackle the challenges of biodiversity loss has increased as
urban populations have grown enormously in the last decades, particularly in developing
countries. The way cities are designed, planned, and governed influence the amount of
their direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity.
However, the process of interaction between cities and biodiversity is still not well understood,
both in theory and in practice. This gap needs to be closed if we want to make progress
on the implementation of CBD since more than half of the worlds population lives in cities
today. As cities are the consumption centres of world resources, and this proportion will
grow in the future, there is no time to lose.
This report analyses the general relationships among cities, local governance, and biodiversity.
Initially, it will examine the relationships between cities and biodiversity by looking at the
major influences cities can have on biodiversity loss or on conservation within and outside
the city boundaries, as well as the benefits of biodiversity conservation for cities, such
as the provision of ecosystem services. The report then moves to understand the main
instruments and governance mechanisms that exist, allowing cities to effectively implement
the directives of CBD.
Cities are some of the biggest beneficiaries of biodiversity and ecosystem services, as
citizens and economic activities depend on those services. However, their involvement in
the CBD process is still limited as compared to their potential contribution and amount
of benefits they could gain from biodiversity. There are many conceptual underpinnings
and governance obstacles to overcome, and we need to create new and adapt existing
conservation strategies, as well as city planning and management instruments to deal with
biodiversity properly.
Nevertheless, the interest of cities in the biodiversity agenda is moving fast, and there are a
lot of opportunities to bring cities to be effective actors in the implementation of CBD. This
requires a large effort for collective action to create better governance mechanisms. Good
governance at the city level, which indeed can deliver an effective implementation of CBD,
depends on governmental and non-governmental actors, not only from one city but from
other levels of governments, including international organisations, and of course the cities
themselves. The key point in the governance structure is not only the capacity of individual
organisations but the strength of coordination among them.
Urbanisation creates new challenges for biodiversity conservation. As a large part of the
worlds population gradually moves from rural to urban areas, there are changes in the link
between human activities and biodiversity, and consequently in the way we should think
about biodiversity conservation policies. Scarce attention has been given to understanding
how to make cities more biodiversity-friendly, not only within, but particularly in the faraway
places.
Executive Summary
Understanding how cities can create better governance mechanisms to effectively support
the preservation of biodiversity within and beyond city boundaries is the key to implement
the directives of the CBD. The actors, instruments, and processes that should be in place are
still not completely understood enough to move the city and biodiversity agenda forward.
This report argues the need to study the conceptual underpinnings of the relationships
among city, governance, and biodiversity to create the basis for policies at the global,
national, and local level, as well as provide some practical insights on the way to move the
biodiversity agenda in cities forward.
Section 1 Introduction
1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularly

with regards to the implementation of CBD?
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was agreed by world leaders in the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It has three broad (and ambitious) objectives:
the conservation of biological diversity,1 the sustainable use of its components, and the
fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of its genetic resources. The main
component for preservation of biodiversity is the habitats where the species live. As such,
the progressive degradation of ecosystems is the main threat to biodiversity. The 2010
target to reduce the rate of biodiversity loss set by governments during the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in 2002 is not being achieved (SCBD, 2010).1
The way cities2 develop definitively influences biodiversity conservation and the distribution
of its benefits among different groups in society. The discussions at the on CBD even
recognised the importance of involving cities and local governments in its implementation
at COP 9 in Bonn, held in 2008. However, the process of interaction between cities and
biodiversity is not well understood, both in theory and in practice. This conceptual gap
needs to be closed if we want to make progress on the implementation of CBD since
more than half of the worlds population lives in cities today. As cities are the consumption
centres of world resources, and the number and proportion of urban dwellers will grow in
the future, there is no time to lose. Moreover, key decision-makers, whose decisions affect
biodiversity, live in cities. Many decisions made by city inhabitants directly affect biodiversity,
both in the city and beyond. The lack of a conceptual understanding of the city-biodiversity
interaction hinders the development of effective governance mechanisms to manage the
impacts of the cities on biodiversity and vice-versa. To start this discussion, we pose several
fundamental questions to be addressed in this report.
Firstly: How do cities influence biodiversity? There are three levels of interaction between
cities and biodiversity. Cities and biodiversity interact within the urban fabric. There is a
variety of species living within city boundaries, the so called urban biodiversity, includes
those species well-adapted to the urban life, such as rats or pigeons. Urban biodiversity can
influence the form of a city as well as its inhabitants. The development of a city also directly
impacts urban biodiversity and how it is distributed among the different groups within the
population. Urban biodiversity seems to be the most researched area so far.
Cities can also have a huge impact on the biodiversity in their nearby surroundings, what
we call here regional biodiversity influence. City activities generate sewage, solid waste and
air pollution, which generally impact the biodiversity in the nearby areas, such as rivers and
marine or terrestrial hinterlands. The expansion of cities, both spatially and economically,
also has tremendous impacts on the surrounding areas. Moreover, a lot of resources needed
in a city come from its surroundings (materials, water, food, etc).
T arget: to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional,
and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth (SCBD, 2010,
p.9).
2
There are many definitions for cities. In this report, we will use a broad definition of a city as a geographically
limited area dominated by a mostly urban landscape, which can include a part of, one or various administrative
units. In certain contexts in the report, the word city is also used to represent its inhabitants or governments. We
will assume in most of the cases that cities are sub-national governments, as there are a limited number of city
states, but most of the text can be applied to city states as well.
1
Additionally, cities consume large amounts of resources coming from faraway places,
influencing the biodiversity of those places, what we call here global biodiversity influence
(related to the green agenda of cities). For example, some of the unregulated timber
consumed in cities around the world comes from trees of distant forests such as the Amazon
or Borneo. The high demand for marine species, such as blue fin tuna in some Asian cities,
poses a threat to those species. These varying levels of influence enabled by globalisation
in many markets means it can be hard to precisely identify the impact of a given city in
different regions across the world.
Secondly, we consider the inverse question to that above. Namely, how does biodiversity
influence cities and city dwellers? Biodiversity provides a series of benefits (commonly termed
ecosystem services) to cities ranging from the more directly perceived such as water supplies
and recreation facilities (parks) to less directly tangible effects of large biodiverse areas such
as plants which may help cure diseases or help with long term climate stability. The services
biodiversity provide to cities are important to city planning both in terms of design, as well
as convincing citizens and policy-makers in cities about the importance of implementing the
CBD. However, those services, and the costs to maintain them, are not distributed evenly
among different groups of citizens within the same city, among cities, among urban and
rural citizens, and among countries. Understanding conceptually the main benefits brought
by biodiversity to cities can help direct policies.
Thirdly: Which biodiversity should we preserve? Cities are found in all natural environments
and as such, they are subject to and exert different levels of influence on biodiversity.
Urban biodiversity may not accommodate the native biodiversity of the surroundings as
this may not be compatible with the urban environment or the demands of city dwellers.
For example, Manaus in Brazil is surrounded by the Amazon jungle, but its citizens do not
expect to share their daily life environment with local fauna, such as boas or piranhas. Some
native trees may not be suitable for the urban environment because of natural limitations
(e.g., need for space, clean air, water or certain species) or due to management constraints
(e.g., frequent need of trimming or cleaning beyond a citys reasonable capacity). Indeed,
the removal of some species from cities, like mosquitoes, can add a better quality of life for
urban citizens. Therefore, the role of cities to foster biodiversity will vary according to its
individual context. For one city, the urban biodiversity may comport with the surrounding
biodiversity and the city can leave a corridor for this biodiversity. In this case, the urban
fabric would be intertwined with the local habitats. For another city (like Manaus), this may
not be possible, or at least not in regards to some species.
Cities also affect other aspects of biodiversity mentioned in the CBD. Cities can be a threat to
biosafety, as many genetic experiments or exotic species exist in cities, or more importantly,
cities can be an easy route to the introduction of those species in the wild environment.
The uncontrolled spill of some of those could cause problems to the urban biodiversity or
biodiversity as a whole.
10
Thus, the governance of cities - the way they are designed, planned, and managed - is
important to determine the outcomes of their influences on the biodiversity at the different
levels. Understanding how cities can create better governance mechanisms to effectively
help in the preservation of biodiversity is the key to implement the directives of the CBD. The
actors, instruments, and processes that should be in place are still not completely understood.
This report aims to shed light on the conceptual underpinnings of the relationships between
city, governance and biodiversity to create the basis for policies at the global, national, and
local level, as well as provide some practical insights on the way to move the biodiversity
agenda in cities forward.
We do this by attempting to understand the relationship between cities and biodiversity
and by looking at conceptual and practical aspects of this interaction. The report begins by
discussing urbanisation and city planning in the context of the environment and indirectly,
biodiversity in section 2. Section 3 then moves to understand how cities benefit from and
is affected by biodiversity and ecosystem services. Section 4 examines the main instruments
for making cities and biodiversity conservation compatible. The final section in five analyses
the governance of biodiversity and the role of cities in the implementation of the CBD,
looking at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
11
Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity
2. Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

Urbanisation creates new challenges for biodiversity conservation. As a large part of the
worlds population moves from rural to urban areas, there are changes in the link between
human activities and biodiversity, and consequently in the way we should think about
biodiversity conservation policies. For example, human activities in rural areas tend to pose
more direct threats to ecosystems by imposing land-use changes to permit the expansion
of agricultural land. Urbanisation poses a relatively small scale impact in terms of direct
land use for urban infrastructure; however, cities depend a lot on outside resources for its
activities and needs, posing indirect threats to the worlds ecosystems. This is exacerbated
by the easy flow of goods and services, often without proper account of the environmental
externalities. Thus, in an urbanised world, understanding and controlling the indirect
impacts of cities is one of the major challenges.
2.1 A brief history of cities in the environment

2.1.1 Past
Since the Neolithic revolution and the emergence of the earliest cities in Mesopotamia
around 4000-3500 BC, the clustering of human beings in settlements of increasing size,
density, and complexity has been perhaps the central organising feature that characterises
human civilization. The reasons as to why mankind adopted this mode of organisation are
disputed but many scholars point to the development of sedentary agriculture as a factor,
which facilitated settlement and urbanisation to begin. Hence, it may be said that from
the very outset, the history of human civilization may be characterised as one of managing
ecosystems to provide a surplus as some areas may not be able to access all resources
necessary within its boundaries. Whilst cities have grown to encompass an ever growing
array of human endeavours, which prima facie appear to be testimony to the primacy of
humans, one inescapable fact is that their existence is based on appropriating ecological
goods and services from outside of its boundaries.
The industrial revolution began the process of accelerating urbanisation that has touched
almost every part of the world, and has been responsible for the pre-eminent societal
transformation of the last 200 years. Industrialisation also increased enormously the scale
and speed cities affect biodiversity. However, when set in the context of the history of
human societies, the magnitude of this change is quite astounding, not just in scale but in
speed. Although cities are a large and highly visible expression of human activity across the
planet, it is worth noting that given the large number of people and economic activities they
accommodate, it is arguably the most efficient means of spatial organisation yet devised.
As such cities, given their history, find themselves in the paradoxical position of consumers
of vast amounts of ecological resources but also playing a key role in their sustainable
management given their central reliance on these resources (Rees and Wackernagel,
2008).
12
2.1.2 Present
Cities are human-dominated ecosystems, which have become dense nodes of energy/
material consumption and residuals production; urban population depends on flows
and services provided by nature more than ever, and the patterns of consumption in highincome urbanised countries cannot be sustained for a global population (Rees, 1997).
However, the impacts of cities on biodiversity are both direct and indirect and can vary over
a wide spatial scale. As with biodiversity, the distribution of people across the Earths surface
is not an equal one. People preferentially live at lower elevations (and by association nearer
coasts) than at higher altitude and prefer temperate to tropical zones (Cohen and Small,
1998). The distribution of human population is shown in the top panel of Figure 1 (in the
inside back cover, p.59), with its urban expression in the form of satellite observed nighttime lights in the lower panel. The worlds most endangered regions are overlaid on both
maps to show the proximity of these areas to both major urban areas and zones of high
population. We see that many biodiversity hotspots occur in developing countries which are
currently experiencing high levels of urbanisation. Distances between protected areas and
cities tend to decrease over time and most of the protected areas affected by urbanisation
are located in medium and low income countries (Mcdonald, et al., 2008).
Split by region, Africa and Asia remain predominantly rural with urbanisation levels of 39
and 41% respectively. As such, these two regions have the greatest potential for growth in
urban population and by 2050, 63% of the worlds urban population is estimated to be in
Asia and one-quarter in Africa. However, in a world where urbanisation grows apace, it is
tempting to make the false assumption that all cities are growing and this it is a one-way
process. Growth rates differ markedly not just by region but also by city size. The UN-HABITAT
reports that the urban population of the developing world grows at a rate of five million
people per month (UN-HABITAT, 2008). This is ten times the rate of the developed world
urban expansion. Much of the urban growth in developing country happens informally.
Although the percentage of population of developing regions living in slums conditions
fell from 47% to 37% between 1990 and 2005, the rapid urbanisation may change this
trend (UNO, 2007). On the other hand, cities in the developed world will expand primarily
through in-migration rather than natural increase. The population of 46 countries including
many major economies (Japan, Germany, and Italy) is expected to be smaller in 2050 than
they are now. This will inevitably be reflected at the city-level. Whilst urban growth attracts
most attention in the urban literature due to the enormous pressures of urbanisation on
the developing world, there is the counter phenomenon of shrinking cities, mainly in the
developed world, which also has a bearing on biodiversity, as this could be an opportunity
to rethink biodiversity in the city landscape.
2.1.3 Future
The regional levels of urbanisation referred to above bring to light another more important
trend in contemporary urbanisation; that of the rise of the city region. Although conurbations
and megacities (cities > 10 million people) exist in many countries, the development of
dense and efficient transportation links not just within but between cities has facilitated
the rise of whole city regions, which are vast urban corridors, home to tens of millions of
people. Several of these exist not just in Europe and North America, but are also emerging
throughout Asia along with Brazil linking several cross national borders (Florida, et al., 2008).
The largest, Hong Kong-Shenhzen-Guangzhou in China, is a conurbation of about 120
13
million people (UN-HABITAT, 2010). Such regions concentrate economic and intellectual
resources and in time, may even compete economically and politically with nation states.
The fact that more than 50% of people live in cities is significant in the sense that humanity
can be said to now share an urban experience. More people know what it is like to live in
a city than those who do not. Whilst this poses a challenge in terms of consumption, the
dense concentration of people nonetheless facilitates the production and dissemination of
ideas and social interaction, which is crucial to moving forward on tackling issues related to
governance of the commons.
As such, the merging of cities into larger more pervasive urban landscapes poses both threats
and opportunities. (Bio)diversity is seen as a precondition for the resilience of ecosystems
(Elmqvist, et al., 2003), including urban agglomerations. Urban health, for instance, as much
as ecological health, refers to the capacity of a system to recover and self-renew; adaptation
refers to the ability of an organism to change the state or structure of the system, the
environment, or both (Sontag and Bubolz, 1996). Because land use change is a main cause
for the decrease of biodiversity, massive land consuming (sprawling) urbanisation requires
the concomitant designation of preservation areas. Currently 293 out of 825 eco-regions
are more than 1/3 urbanised (Mcdonald, et al., 2008). Seen purely from the perspective of
spatial expansion; of the 779 rare species with only one known population, 24 are expected
to be affected by the growth in urban areas by 2030.
In the future, changing environmental conditions will affect millions of people worldwide
and can lead to massive forced migration (e.g., Cernea, 2000; Cernea and Guggenheim,
1993; Courtland Robinson, 2003; McGranahan, et al., 2007). With rapid urban development
and fundamental land policy reform during the past three decades, issues of climate change
and biodiversity have not received the necessary attention by many governments. For
example, in China, temperatures have risen more than the global average over the last
100 years and the country has already suffered billions in economic loss with increasing
frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods (for recent examples, see
Branigan, 2009; Qian, 2009; Xinhua News Agency, 2009a, 2009b). By 2020, it is estimated,
the urban population might comprise 60% of the total population in China (Yusuf and
Nabeshima, 2008). Many of Chinas growing cities are located in low elevation coastal
zones, hence particularly threatened by climate change related issues, like e.g., sea level rise
(McGranahan, et al., 2007). Biodiversity enhancing initiatives could help to build resilience
in vulnerable areas, such as on riparian or coastal areas, as well as mitigate the effects of
climate change.
2.2 Converging views in the movements for biological conservation and

urban planning
Urbanisation processes per se have been politicised in the past, and the views on what
constitutes sustainable urban forms differ. The various definitions of urban influences
the patterns of urbanisation, which in turn affect ecological processes (McIntyre, et al.,
2000). Urbanisation can be defined as an ecological and social phenomenon similar to a
disturbance comparable to fires or floods. However, with the shift in ecology toward
14
Home to 213 endemic terrestrial vertebrate species.
a non-equilibrium paradigm recognising system openness, disturbance as part of system

dynamics, and succession and adaptation as highly unpredictable, urban ecosystems have
received renewed attention (Pickett, et al., 2004).
Historically, the modern ideas and movements of urban planning and biological conservation
came from very different intellectual traditions and have had very different practical
applications over time. This has made it difficult to think about both concurrently. However,
as movements and concepts change over time, both movements may now be converging
with some common grounds and principles, as we can also see from the growing number
of urban ecologists and green urbanists, which could help to make both movements
compatible in the near future, both in theory and practice.
The modern policies for biological conservation have evolved from promoting a complete
separation between humans and nature to a larger integration of humans and human
activities as part of the nature and conservation process. Even though initiatives for
biological conservation, such as the creation of protected areas, have been carried out
for centuries (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1996), the concept of promoting biological conservation
has a landmark in the idea of modern natural parks, starting with the establishment of
Yellowstone National Park in the USA in 1872. The idea of the park, separating humans
from nature, is expressed by the word of early modern American conservationist John Muir:
Our wild mountains should be saved from all sorts of commercialism and marks of mans
work (Nash, 1978).
For over a century, the spirit motivating Yellowstone has inspired the creation of protected
areas for recreational, scenic, and economic values throughout the United States and many
other countries. The establishment of those areas is still necessary to preserve most of our
biodiversity. However, when the conservation movement expanded to developing countries,
many protected areas were created regardless of the needs of local people. Often these
people had inhabited the region for generations, sometimes before formal states were
established. Lines for conservation areas were drawn without considering the fact that
people lived in those areas or used them for cultural, religious, or subsistence activities, such
as hunting, fishing, and collecting fruits and firewood (Diegues, 1994; Rawat, 1997). In the
last four decades, as many developing countries have expanded their protected areas, such
moves have provoked local conflicts (Tisdell, 1995; Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995). Thus, policymakers, conservation advocates, and academics have realised that local people should be
part of any conservation strategy, and are fundamental to their design and implementation
of conservation actions, so conservation should take into account local peoples cultural and
social values and economic interests (MacKinnon, et al., 1986; McNeely, 1992; CeballosLascurain, 1996; Albers and Grinspoon, 1997). As the urban population has grown
dramatically, there is an increasing need to understand how to integrate the needs of urban
citizens into conservation strategies, as they should be a part of, not apart from nature.
On the other hand, the city planning movement, moved from separating the different
functions in different spaces to a more diverse land use in the same space, including more
bio-diverse landscapes. The modern concept of urban planning started with the creation of
the Garden Cities (Howard, 1902) in the UK at the end of the 19th century. The idea was to
design well planned urban environments to move people away from the increasing polluted
and congested industrial cities and bring them closer to the rural environment and nature.
The functions of the cities would be divided to allow a clear distinction among the different
15
activities of the cities. Residential, industrial, and commercial uses had to be separated. As
the city planning field evolved in the 20th century, this idea of functional division (industrial,
residential, etc.) of the cities was crystallised by planners like Le Corbusier and Lucio Costa
in cities such as Brasilia. Biological conservation was addressed only by the introduction of
green areas, mostly urban parks or green belts, having their main function as providing
recreation to urban citizens. However, this planning tradition was challenged both from
those that criticise the functional division of the city and those that advocate for a more
process oriented, bottom-up input in the planning process (Davidoff, 1965).
As urban planning moved to the 21st century, plans and planners have indeed become
more process oriented and have increasingly become aware of the sustainability challenges.
The idea of having cities divided by functions created problems, like urban sprawl and
car-dependent and climate-unfriendly cities, and has lost ground recently to a more multifunctional urban areas, multi-use land use, compact cities, such as those in the smart growth
(Bullard, 2007) and new urbanism movement (CNU, 1996), which are argued to be more
environmentally and people-friendly4. New uses that are not traditionally from cities, such
as urban agriculture, has gained attention recently as well as a way to provide green spaces,
food security, jobs, and climate mitigation from the transport of agricultural products. The
inclusion of biodiversity concerns in city planning is still in the early stages of conceptualisation,
as for a long time green areas and biodiversity conservation were interchangeable concepts.
However, there is today an intellectual space to include biodiversity issues when thinking
about urban landscapes and multi-uses and should definitively be introduced in discussions
and planning processes.
Thus, as biological conservation has moved to become more people-friendly, urban
planning has become more biodiversity friendly. The two movements which seemed far
apart in the past, now include some ideas that have allowed them to come closer to each
other. Even though those movements still have to evolve to fully incorporate each others
ideas, this convergence now allows us to discuss both concepts together. Furthermore,
this could help to find a combination that moves the city and biodiversity agenda forward
on both sides (urban planning and biological conservation) and to make cities a major
implementation agent of the CBD.
16
urban places should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local history, climate,
ecology, and building practice. (Charter of New Urbanism, CNU, 1996)
Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity
3. Linking Cities and Biodiversity

Biodiversity is considered an underpinning element of ecosystems and as such the key
determinant of ecosystem functioning. Several of the services provided by ecosystems5
which contribute significantly to human well-being are direct products of biodiversity;
therefore, biodiversity loss can, in one way or another, affect almost all services provided by
ecosystems (MA, 2005).
3.1 Biodiversity and urban well-being: provision of ecosystem services

Urban residents benefit directly or indirectly from a multitude of ecosystems services that
range from provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel, water) to regulating (e.g. climate and
air pollution regulation, waste assimilation, flood and fire regulation) and cultural services
(MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010). Indeed, urban systems are net consumers of ecosystem services
considering the fact that there is a much higher net inflow of ecosystem services to cities.
City dwellers are usually more aware of ecosystem services that are located within cities
such as recreation and cultural services from parks or potable water from rivers and lakes.
Stockholms residents benefit tremendously from ecosystem services provided by the parks
and water bodies situated within the city (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Such services
include air pollution regulation, micro-climate regulation, noise reduction, rainwater
drainage, sewage treatment, and numerous recreational and cultural services (Ibid). In the
same manner, food and other ecosystem services (e.g. sanitation, nutrient recycling) can
be provided through urban agricultural activities particularly in cities situated in developing
nations (e.g. Pearson, et al., 2010; Eaton and Hilhorst, 2003).
However, the fact remains that the contribution of ecosystems to the well-being of urban
residents is much higher if the services provided by ecosystems adjacent to cities or very
distant to the city itself are considered.
For example, ecosystem services such as food, medicine, and other non-timber forest
products can be provided by ecosystems that are adjacent to cities (e.g. FAO, 2008;
Mwampamba, 2007; Tacoli, 2006; Dietmar, 2005; Midmore and Jansen, 2003). Additionally,
most major cities are located within the catchments of major rivers and lakes that can
provide ecosystem services such as potable water, water purification, food and energy (from
upstream or downstream hydro-electrical facilities). It is no wonder that coastal and inland
water ecosystems are on average more urbanised than the other systems assessed in the
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005).
The appropriation of ecosystem services from distant ecosystems is mainly associated with
urban production and consumption processes and trade (MA, 2005) (also refer to Sections
3.3.2 and 3.3.3). Generally speaking, the richer a city is, the higher its appropriation of
natural capital and particularly the appropriation of ecosystem services from faraway
ecosystems tends to be (e.g. Folke, et al., 1997). For example, urban residents are benefiting
tremendously from climate regulation services offered by distant ecosystems, e.g. through
the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Ecosystem services are defined as those ...benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MA, 2005: 27).
17
3.2 Major drivers of biodiversity loss and its links to urban activity
Urbanisation can contribute significantly to biodiversity loss and degradation (McKinney,
2002; Sukopp, 2004; Whitford, et al., 2001). In addition to the impacts within the city, wider
impacts at regional and global scales are also likely. According to the CBD (2007), most of
the fundamental threats to biodiversity loss are related to public services and instruments,
of which city governments are directly responsible.
Considering the importance of ecosystem services on the well-being of urban residents6 and
the fact that biodiversity directly and indirectly provides numerous ecosystem services, it is
important to understand how urban activity can affect biodiversity at various spatial scales.
According to the MA, the major human drivers of biodiversity loss are habitat destruction,
pollution, the introduction of alien species, overexploitation, and climate change. All of
these drivers can in one way or another be linked to urban activity. The remainder of this
section unravels how urban activity can influence the main drivers of biodiversity loss.
3.2.1 Habitat destruction

There is significant evidence in the academic literature regarding the impact of habitat
destruction and land use change on biodiversity inside urban centres and along urban-rural
gradients (Alberti, 2005; McKinney, 2002). At the same time, consumption activities within
cities have been blamed for habitat destruction in peri-urban areas and distant ecosystems,
including land clearing for the production of food and an array of consumer goods such as
furniture.
3.2.2 Pollution
Pollution can affect biodiversity in and around cities. There is significant evidence which
links air pollution to the loss of biodiversity. For example, more than 1,300 species were
threatened in Europe alone due to acid deposition in 1990s (Tickle, et al., 1995). Water
pollution can also significantly affect biodiversity in coastal and inland water ecosystems
through toxicity and eutrophication among other processes (MA, 2005; SCBD, 2010). It is
interesting to note that the main water pollutants can be either directly emitted by urban
areas (e.g. sewage, industrial activity) or indirectly (e.g. run-off from agricultural and mining
activities, ship discharges due to increased trade) and affect extended areas and aquatic
ecosystems.
3.2.3 Introduction of alien species

There seems to be a greater prevalence of introduced species across a rural-urban gradient
towards the city centre (McKinney, 2002). This implies the existence of disturbed habitats
that provide opportunities for non-native species to find niches and compete with native
species and potentially turn into invasive species, in the city and beyond, making the city a
hub for the introduction of alien species in a region or ecosystems. For example, ornamental
plants can use different characteristics of the urban system to disperse within it and outside
6
18
iodiversity is increasingly considered to have an intrinsic value. As a result, more voices are currently articulating
B
that biodiversity should be conserved irrespective of its contribution to human well-being (i.e. irrespective of the
ecosystem services it provides).
of it (Sumel and Kowarik, 2010; Gulezian and Nyberg, in press). In South Africa, more than
300 plant invasive species cause diverse kinds of problems (Bromilow, 2001). In certain cases,
these non-native species have become invasive after their planned or uplanned introduction
into cities. Two famous cases are those of the European starling and of the water hyacinth.
European starlings were introduced in America in the 1890s. From an initial population of
40 pairs in New Yorks Central Park, it currently numbers around 200 million individuals
across the US and is competing with native bird species (MA, 2005). The water hyacinth
was introduced as a water purification mechanism and as a pond ornamental plant but it
has taken over whole freshwater ecosystems and is competing with local flora and fauna for
oxygen often, causing asphyxiation and massive population die-offs (MA, 2005).
3.2.4 Overexploitation
An example of biodiversity overexploitation is the case of bushmeat overconsumption in
urban poor and rural households in Africa. Bushmeat is a significant component of the
human diet around the Congo Basin with its demand having grown significantly due to
the increasing urban consumers and even illegal exports (Kinver, 2010). This demand is
resulting in a defaunation ring around population centres (in peri-urban areas), and may be
driving unsustainable levels of hunting in more distant areas (Wilkie and Carpenter, 1999).
A second example of the overexploitation of biodiversity is the trade, in most cases illegal, of
wild animals and plants for pet, food, ornamental, medicinal, and other purposes. In several
cases, the illegally traded animals and plants can be endemic (Flores-Palacios and ValenciaDiaz, 2007) or threatening7. It has been suggested that it is urban demand associated with
the generally higher incomes of urban residents (and not local demand), which is driving
this wildlife trade in several parts of Asia (World Bank, 2008) and possibly around the world.
Box 1: Food consumption and long-range effects on biodiversity
Whilst much attention is devoted to the capacity of cities to preserve and enhance biodiversity
within their borders, it must also be realized that a cities appropriate resources from outside their
borders in the process of catering to the needs and desires of its citizens. One of the most obvious
exurban biodiversity effects of urban development and rising affluence is in the domain of food.
Cities in both developed and developing countries exert this pressure.
In general, this can be conceived of as the increase in meat products. This has lead to wide scale
deforestation to make way for ranches and soya plantations which provide feed for increasing
numbers of cattle. The efficiency of commercial fishing has the potential to decimate fish stocks
and several have been declining for many years. The increased consumption in species like tuna
is raising fears of collapse of the bluefin tuna in the northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea
(MacKenzie, et al., 2008)
Rare and endangered species are also at risk through the bushmeat trade. In Vietnam for instance,
rising affluence of a growing middle class in urban areas is increasing demand for domestic
wild animal products. This new market has shifted the consumption of wild species from what
was previously a subsistence activity to an almost entirely a commercial one (Drury, 2009). The
consumption of wild species is also finding a wider market in many European and Asian cities for
both food and traditional medicinal uses. A recent study estimates 5 tons of bushmeat per week
is smuggled into Paris-CDG airport. The species discovered include CITES-listed species including
primates and crocodiles. Some of these meat products can fetching 20 times the price between
Africa and Europe (Chaber, et al., 2010).
7
efer to Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
R
(CITES) which lists approximately 800 such species <http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml>
19
Currently the illegal transit of wild species is a low priority with customs agencies since most are
focused on, and incentivized to intercept drugs. Improved methods of detection and procedures to
easily identify species which are seized are also required; the use of genetic barcodes is a promising
development in this area (Science Daily, 2009). Ultimately education and cultural change are the
mechanisms by which the demand for rare species will wane. The evidence from Vietnam shows
that there is a strong connection to status in consuming wild species since it is perceived as rare,
precious and of high quality. Substitution to farmed equivalents of wild species is unacceptable or
may even intensify demand for bona fide wild species (Drury, 2009).
Sources:
Chaber, A-L. et al., 2010. The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris. Conservation
Letters, [Published Online] doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00121.x.
Drury, R., 2009. Reducing urban demand for wild animals in Vietnam: examining the potential of wildlife farming
as a conservation tool. Conservation Letters, 2(6), pp.263-270. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00078.x.
MacKenzie, B.R., Mosegaard, H., and Rosenberg, A.A., 2009. Impending collapse of bluefin tuna in the northeast
Atlantic and Mediterranean. Conservation Letters, 2(1), pp.26-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00039.x.
Science Daily, 2009. First DNA Barcodes of Commonly Traded Bushmeat: New Tool for Tracking
Global Trade in Wildlife. September 8th 2009. [online] Available at: <http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2009/09/090904165105.htm> [Accessed 12 July 2010].
3.2.5 Climate change

Climate change is considered to be an emerging threat to biodiversity (Thomas, et al., 2004,
IPCC, 2007b). Urban activity is directly and indirectly driving changes in the global and local
climate through the emission of GHGs, the direct and indirect land use change and other
processes (IPCC, 2007c). The urban heat island (UHI) effect is one phenomenon that shows
how urban activity can affect the local climate. Studies have revealed the mechanisms of
UHI and have suggested that the impacts of global climate change can be exacerbated
in areas that experience UHI effects (Rosenzweig, et al., 2005). Aspects related to urban
biodiversity such as prolongation of vegetation time, early flowering of plants, or increased
frequencies of bird broods have been connected to the UHI phenomenon. For example,
floristic maps of cities have shown a close connection between species distribution and
warmer cities (Wittig, 2004). Likewise, several authors have pointed out the importance of
winter roost of birds in northern cities (Sukopp and Werner, 1982).
3.3
Linking biodiversity loss to urban processes
The previous section introduced the major human drivers of biodiversity loss. In the following
sections, we provide a detailed discussion of how different urban processes affect these
drivers directly and indirectly. It should be noted that this discussion is not exhaustive due to
the complexity of these processes and their impacts.
20
3.3.1 Urban development

Perhaps the most visually straightforward influence of urban activity on the drivers of
biodiversity loss is land use and land cover change. Population and economic growth
generally results in greater demand for housing and basic infrastructure such as roads,
public spaces, drinking water, sanitation, and community development. To meet these
demands, natural land is transformed into human-made landscapes, most of which create
impermeable and vegetation-free surfaces. For example, out of the total area urbanised in
Concepcion (Chile), ...55% corresponded to wetlands and 45% to agriculture, forest, and
shrub land cover types (Pauchard, et al., 2006).
Such urban development is argued to bring significant conservation challenges (McKinney,
2002) and directly affects three of the main drivers of biodiversity loss, namely habitat
destruction, overexploitation, and the introduction of invasive species.
Urban development can also induce the extinction of native species and the replacement of
native species with alien (non-native) species (McKinney, 2002). Urban-rural gradient studies
in different cities reveal that the level of native species decreases in central parts of cities,
where the ratio of built spaces to green spaces and the proportion of impervious surfaces
are high (Zerbe, et al. 2003; McKinney, 2002; Sukopp, 2004).Pauchard, et al. (2006) on the
other hand find a correlation between road density and the number of alien species, which
is concentrated along roadsides and disturbed grounds.
Most of the above mentioned underlying effects of urban development on the drivers of
biodiversity loss can be linked to urban planning in various ways. Residential developments
in cities mostly put stress over the surrounding ecology but can also stress ecosystems
faraway. Generally speaking, housing expansion in developed countries affects biodiversity
due to its large consumption of resources (e.g. timber) and land (e.g., suburbanisation).
On the other hand, housing needs in most developing nations are largely satisfied through
informal and uncontrolled ways. In some cases, the lack of urban planning as a mechanism
to control urban development contributes to environmental deterioration. In many Turkish
cities, a significant part of illegal and unauthorised residential developments took place
within forests and agricultural lands in urban fringes. In the Beykoz District in Istanbul,
unplanned urban development reduced forest and agricultural land from 76% to 60%
and from 15% to 10% respectively between 1984 and 2001 (Musaoglu et al., 2005).
They also noted that most of this conversion took place within Elmali Reservoir Watershed,
which can affect water supply. Similarly, in many other cases, the expansion of residential
developments, especially informal settlements, takes place in an unplanned manner in
areas which are not targeted by the formal sector. These areas are sometimes located in or
adjacent to highly biodiverse ecosystems such as forest and mangroves. For instance, Rio de
Janeiro lost a large part of its forests and mangroves due to the expansion of favelas (slums).
It is estimated that 9% of the sandbank mangroves were lost in the last three years alone
(O Globo, 2010).
However, it should be clarified that on certain occasions, urban planning does not
necessarily mitigate the causes of environmental deterioration in general, and of biodiversity
loss in particular. Half of the US population lives in suburban housing within sprawling
developments, which is accepted as a major threat to peri-urban ecosystems (Pauchard et
al., 2006). Most, if not all, of these suburban residential developments are planned and
21
authorised. Thus, what prevents urban planning to make a positive change is the lack of an
ecological understanding and thinking in our current planning approaches. Perhaps, the lack
of such urban planning approaches that have integrated sound ecological understanding
can be perceived as an underlying cause of biodiversity loss within and around cities.
Box 2: Conflict between biodiversity preservation and unauthorized
housing in Mumbai
The Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), which covers an area of 103 square kilometers in the
north of Mumbai, is one of the largest parks in the world in a metropolitan area. The park is known
to include a rich and diverse ecosystem along with numerous historical assets. A dense forest with
substantial flora and fauna diversity and two main lakes as important sources of water for Mumbai
are found in the park area. Needless to say, the park also functions as a major carbon sink within
the dense and congested city of Mumbai.
SGNP was exposed to illegal urban development, which was accelerated greatly after 1990,
both in terms of squatters of urban poor and the large bungalows of the wealthier sections of
society. Between mid-1995 and mid-1996 there occurred the loss of 27 ha forest land by such
urban development1. Environmentalists led in large part by the middle class citizens filed a Public
Interest Litigation case against the local government to ensure the protection of the park. Shortly
after, the court case turned against the poor groups, who were regarded as the main threat to
environmental sustainability. Squatter settlements became the mere focus of the court case, which
lasted from 1995 to late 2003. The court ruled in favour the relocation of 33,000 people (those
with proofs of residence) to a village far away from their present location and work places, and the
immediate eviction of 24,000 people (those without proofs of residence), who were considered
as illegal settlers.
Resistance by the individuals and resident associations followed the final judgment of the court.
Numerous challenging petitions were filed in the court, yet all of them were dismissed. However,
no significant progress has taken place since the final judgment of the court. Most of the poor
inhabitants of the park area refused to move, and those, who moved, went to some other illegal
settlements nearby, in order not to lose their close connection to the city. Such attitudes by the
inhabitants of park area are regarded as a logical response, as the judges neglected the rights of
the urban poor as citizens of Mumbai. The Judges decision implied that the right to the city is
not applicable to low-income and poor groups.
The case of Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) in Mumbai shows how the lack of proper housing
policies and unauthorized urban development could affect green spaces, which contain critical
ecosystem and habitats. However it also highlights that conservation and preservation efforts should
be carried out in a way to consider the urban poor and to bring pro-poor solutions. Prevalence of
the explicit conflicts between conservation and sheltering could inevitably marginalize the poor,
and hence relocate the problems rather than solving them.
Source:
Zerah, M.H., 2007. Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of the Sanjay
Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. Cities, 24(2), pp. 122-132.
22
E conet, (1997), A comprehensive environmental assessment of SGNP (Borivili National Park), Mumbai, Vijay
Paranjpye and Econet, Study Commissioned by the Maharashtra State Division of the WWF, Mumbai
3.3.2 Production and consumption in cities

Cities are centres of production of consumer goods, with natural resources being massively
processed and transformed into commodities in or around urban areas. At the same
time, urbanisation has brought significant changes in human lifestyles, such as the rise of
consumerism (Davis, 2000), which complements production. In fact, while cities occupy only
around 2% of the Earth surface, they consume an estimated 75% of its utilised resources
(UNEP and UN-HABITAT, 2005). With urbanisation, comes rising affluence and changes
in taste. Higher incomes and higher levels of disposable incomes allow new consumers
to express their demand for tastes previously unattainable. Production and consumption
activities within cities can affect directly and indirectly several drivers of biodiversity loss such
as overexploitation, habitat change, pollution, and climate change.
The UN Human Development Report of 1998 (UNO, 1998) has already discussed the impacts
of the huge growth in consumption during the 20th century. Larger consumption is a sign
of growing living standards and several parts of the world now benefits from the comfort
of individual local transport, hot water, electricity, larger houses, abundance of food, and
access to air transportation. However, the report also highlights the skewed distribution of
these benefits and the consequences of uncontrolled consumption, particularly by the rich
urban centres, on the environment. Urbanites around the world increasingly demand more
food, timber, minerals, oil, electricity and other commodities to satisfy their growing needs
fuelled by their increasing incomes. The urban residents appetite for different kinds of
products drives most of the habitat destruction and overexploitation of biodiversity in periurban areas and distant ecosystems and thereby global environmental change. For example,
the rising standards of living, particularly in urban centres of the developed and rapidly
developing world have been associated with shifts in diets and particularly with increases
in meat consumption (e.g. FAO, 2006). Livestock production has been blamed as perhaps
the single largest threat to biodiversity given that it currently appropriates almost a third of
the planets ice-free land, and it is the major driver of deforestation and a significant emitter
of greenhouse gases (GHGs), among other relevant environmental impacts. It is estimated
that of the 35 identified biodiversity hotspots worldwide, 23 are affected significantly from
livestock production (FAO, 2006).
In a similar manner, Tokyos residents have not only have increased their seafood consumption
over time, but they are increasingly consuming more species, or eating down the food
chain than ever before (Gadda and Marcotullio, 2007). Certain fish species prevalent in the
human diet are not only overfished but are also threatened by fishery collapse8. Although
a direct connection between increasing affluence and another facet of over-exploitation
(the number of endangered species) can be difficult to demonstrate (Chambers, et al.
2008) in regions like East and South East Asia, rapid economic development brings the
competition of globalisation to traditional medicine and other cultural consumption. The
Asian tiger, shark fins, and rhino horn are today desirable commodities, which can find
an expression in the urban markets. Whilst their habitats may not be directly threatened
by urban encroachment, poachers supplying an urban demand could still render a species
extinct.
Such an example is the case of the Atlantic blue fin tuna that is now considered critically endangered by the IUCN.
23
Production activities, on the other hand, have shifted geographically in the last two
decades. Industrial production is now a major function in many cities in the developing
world and is generally located within or just outside the cities and in close proximity to
surrounding natural resources and labour. In a nutshell, industrial production processes
generate sewage and solid waste, which can impact biodiversity in adjacent areas and
faraway areas. Soil pollution, water pollution, and air pollution such as GHG emissions
by industrial activities are also major threats to biodiversity at different spatial scales. The
need exists for a reformulation of urban development objectives, particularly for a move
away from purely economic growth targets and towards the inclusion of environmental
sustainability, efficient urban forms, and liveable communities(Ingram, 2009; see also
Yusuf and Nabeshima, 2008).
Box 3: Linking consumption and its impacts Garstang and 100% fair trade
One of the biggest challenges to address biodiversity issues in cities is to find a way to control the
impacts of consumption, sometimes in far away places, without restricting individual freedom
or hurting economic possibilities for trade. The fair trade movement could be the beginning
of a solution, even though its main objectives are to improve the lives of farmers in developing
countries. Different kinds of certifications and definitions try to include impacts on biodiversity as
one of the main points to consider a product as a fair trade product, such as making sure areas
of conservation are identified and preserved by producers, harvest of natural species are done
sustainably and endangered species are not collected or hurt.
The town of Garstang in Lancashire, North West England, is considered the first Fairtrade Town,
a network of more than 800 towns in 19 countries. Fair trade towns are recognised by the Fairtrade
Foundation, which follow a series of criteria to assess whether communities give full support to fair
trade initiatives, such as having the town councils enacting a resolution to fully support fair trade,
engage communities in awareness raising, and make fair trade products available in the retail
market and at public places like schools and colleges when it is possible.
In April 2000, the people of Garstang voted almost unanimously to make the city the first fair
trade place in the world. The town was a pioneer in a global initiative to make fair trade more
mainstream, what could also be a seed to a global initiative to make consumption more accountable
to its impacts on people and biodiversity.
Source:
Fairtrade Towns, 2010. International fairtrade town movement. [online] Available at: <http://www.
fairtradetowns.org> [Accessed 12 July 2010].
3.3.3 Trade and transportation

The increasing need for roads and parking lots in and between cities are a clear direct
impact of transportation on ecosystems, as well as the effects of the local pollutants caused
by vehicles. Moreover, the expansion and growth of urban areas is also considered an
important factor for the increase of trade and the circulation of commodities. As a result,
trade and transport is indirectly linked to biodiversity loss drivers such as GHG-induced
climate change and the introduction of invasive species.
The global transport systems currently account for almost 25% of the worlds carbon dioxide
emissions (World Energy Council, 2007), and this is increasing at a faster rate than any
other energy using sector (IPCC, 2007a). Levels of emissions from transportation are higher
24
than the worlds average in many developed nations. Cities shares in transportation-related
emissions can also be significant. In So Paulo , 48.6% of GHG emissions are due to land
transportation related emissions (Puppim de Oliveira 2009). In the United States, almost
40% of carbon dioxide emissions come from cars and residencies (EIA, 2009).
Increasing trade as a result of urban appetite for global commodities might also have direct
impacts on biodiversity. For instance, ship discharges along trade routes can be an avenue
for the introduction of invasive species. Such an example is the case of the European zebra
mussel which was introduced in the Great Lakes of North America through the ships
ballast water. The European zebra mussel has a significant impact on the biodiversity of the
ecosystems it invaded (MA, 2005).
3.3.4 Heat stress related to the urban heat island effect

Climate change is a growing concern with extensive implications for life on Earth. Ecosystem
and biodiversity, on which human existence depends, are increasingly facing multiple
anthropogenic stresses, caused by macro and micro climate change. Cities, as aggregates of
human activities, require energy in a variety of forms. Much of the primary energy sources
transformed to be available to most of the cities around the world are still fossil-based,
resulting in global climate change. In addition to this, cities are encountering particular
problems related to urban climatology.
There is a growing accumulation of research work on the urban climatology issue, especially
in the US, Japan, and Europe. Recent studies are increasingly consolidated with urban
factors that potentially alter the main elements of the urban climate, where temperature is
the most highly affected variable and the one most characterising urban climate (Gomez, et
al., 1998). The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI), which represents the temperature differences
between cities and their surrounding areas, is increasingly recognised as creating biophysical
hazards most typical to cities (Landsberg, 1981). Heat stress and concentration of secondary
air pollutants are the examples of such hazards (Solecki, et al., 2005). There are many
causes for UHI effects, including reduced vegetation cover, impervious surface area, and
morphology of buildings in cityscapes that lower evaporative cooling, store heat, and warm
the surface air (Bonan, 2002).
Heightened air and surface temperature in urban areas relative to surrounding areas creates
habitat modification in urban ecosystems. Although few works have explicitly considered
heat island effects on the urban ecology and related issues (Bradley, 2006), a strong
correlation is generally recognised between urban climate change and its effects on the
biological distribution and composition in urban areas. One survey, for example, observed
earlier cherry blossom distribution in metropolitan centres than in its suburbs (Omoto
and Aono, 1990). When the habitat modification intensified, different trophic biophysical
elements may appear in urban areas, becoming the threats to the indigenous ecosystem in
the cities. It can even change patterns of transmission of infectious diseases (Foley, 2005).
Several vector-borne diseases may respond to temperature change related to urbanisation
(Schochat, 2006). Reduced seasonality in urban areas could further affect the persistence of
parasites (Louis, 2005). Also, it can increase population growth rates of some wildlife hosts
by extending their breeding period, observed in the case of dark-eyed juncos inhabiting an
urban site in California (Altizer, et al., 2006). Conversely, reduced seasonality has a chance to
25
lower the infectious disease risks on the individual level, due to better nutritious conditions
through food availability, for example. The feedback loop associated with urban climate
change is, therefore, highly complex and needs careful examination (Bradley, 2006).
26
Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD
4. Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4.1 Development and implementation of proper housing and
infrastructure policies
Proper housing policies involve several aspects of the promotion, control, and provision of
residential spaces. Developed and developing countries face different challenges to have
more environmentally or biodiversity friendly housing policies. While habitat and biodiversity
is threatened by formal expansion in developed countries, developing countries lack the
capacity to provide proper housing for its urbanising population, leading to the occupation
of sensitive areas by informal settlements. Moreover, more sustainable use of material,
particularly concerning biodiversity sensitive materials, is still incipient.
Addressing residential issues is vital for controlling cities ecological footprint in developed
nations. Those nations suffer from high consumptions of resources and land due to urban
expansion. Although they are planned and controlled, residential developments extend
over a large area in developed nations. Urban sprawl and suburbanisation are in large
part caused by the demand for suburban lifestyles by middle- and high-income groups.
McKinney (2002) mentions that due to the spread of suburban housing in the US, the
growth rate of urban land use surpassed that of lands preserved as parks or conservation
areas. By means of infill developments and urban regeneration projects, the need and the
demand for peripheral development and suburbanisation could be diminished by planning
guidelines and economic incentives. Policies favouring and facilitating the development of
compact urban forms by better utilisation of inner-city lands could reduce the ecological
footprints of cities, as well as voluntary or mandated green procurement for construction
materials.
Some middle-income developing countries face the same suburbanisation process of
developed countries, as the higher income population moves to certain suburbs or new
towns. However, cities in most developing countries lack the capacity of providing adequate
housing and infrastructure to their growing urban population, which ends up in informal
settlements in biodiversity sensitive areas. There is a need of strong housing policies that
could provide low-cost, environmentally sustainable, and adequate housing for the low
income population, but at the same time controlling illegal settlements in areas not proper
for housing to avoid disasters and loss of biodiversity.
Thus, addressing housing issues is vital for controlling cities ecological footprint while
contributing to urban resilience and social development. One example of an initiative in
this area is Eco-housing, a programme developed jointly by UNEP and UN-HABITAT, a
concept that applies sustainability principles to the entire lifecycle of a housing project,
considering environmentally friendly approaches to the design, site assessment and material
selection, and energy, water, and waste management at the household and community
levels. Implementing eco-housing principles in cities of developing countries on a global
scale will certainly have positive connotations for biodiversity conservation, both in reducing
footprints and in creating less polluting urban environments. Yet, according to UN-HABITAT,
projects are effective only if considered within their social-economic dimension. The
Experimental Reimbursable Seeding Operations (ERSO) is an alternative social instrument
27
involving commercial loans and direct repayment elements by the householders themselves.
ERSO aims at increasing the affordability of housing and providing seed-capital to community
projects for slum upgrading and infrastructure projects through local financial institutions.
Box 4: The planning-implementation gap in Dongtan Eco City, China
Located north of Shanghai, Chongming Island is the worlds largest alluvial island and home to
precious wetlands and migrating birds. In 2005, British engineering firm Arup was commissioned
to design the master plan for Dongtana new eco city for 500,000 people occupying one third of
the Island and envisioned to become a model for Chinas future urban development.
The concept for Dongtan focused clearly on environmental sustainability, largely neglecting
political, economic, and social factors. Arups master plan featured zero-greenhouse-emission
transportation, complete self-sufficiency in water and energy, zero energy building principles,
and close-to-complete waste recycling, among other innovative intentions. The plan claimed that
existing wetlands would be protected by buffer zones between the city and the wetlands, and that
the total area covered by wetlands currently would even be increased by land use conversion from
agriculture. The original plan envisioned 5,000 people to live in Dongtan Eco City by 2010, in time
for the Shanghai World Expo, but the project failed to materialise for reasons undisclosed, and its
future remains uncertain (Sigrist, 2009).
Envisioning tourismresorts, theme parks, stadiums, and exhibition centresas the main
contributor to the economic development of Chongming Island, Shanghais municipal government
focused on the construction of a bridge-tunnel between Shanghai and the Island as a first step
toward to development of the Dongtan project. Indeed, the completion of the bridge-tunnel
in November 2009 attracted 480,000 visitors in just ten days, and visitor traffic forced local
authorities to consider charging fees for scenic spots and limiting touristic activities to designated
areas. Parking areas quickly took the place of agriculturally used land, and toilet blocks and other
infrastructure needed to sustain the visitor torrent spread quickly and subject to loose control
(Shen, 2009). Land use conversion owing to the tourist boom swiftly forced local farmers out of
business, and many continue to wait for the local government to deliver on their promise to reemploy them in the tourism industry around the wetlands (Lu, 2009). The current tourism boom
and the seemingly uncontrolled development on the Island, far from Arups original plans, clearly
increases resource consumption, and furthermore, poses a growing danger to agricultural land,
precious wildlife habitats, and local culture, while its justification as a source for local employment
has not lived up to expectations to date.
Since it was first made public, Dongtan Eco City has attracted mixed reactions, ranging from its
appraisal as a model of urban sustainability to accusations of sociopolitical totalitarianism. Dongtan,
should it ever materialise, can only be considered socially sustainable if it clearly addresses the existing
and emerging problems around its current population. If future development, indeed, succeeds in
addressing equally all aspects of sustainability, without giving priority to economic gains, Dongtan
may become a replicable model; so far, it has ceased to meet even basic requirements, and the gap
between the original vision and the current, profit-oriented development, causes much concern. In
any case, building more cities on undeveloped land seems less promising than converting existing
cities to meet the criteria for social, environmental, economic, and political sustainability.
Sources:
Lu, S., 2009. Boom forces farmer to adapt. Shanghai Daily, [online] 23 November, Available at: <http://www.
shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200911/20091123/article_420335.htm> [Accessed 23 November 2009].
Shen, W., 2009. Visitor limits planned for Chongming. Shanghai Daily, [online] 14 November, Available at: <http://
www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200911/20091114/article_419474.htm> [Accessed 15 November 2009].
Sigrist, P., 2009. Dontan Eco City: A Model of Urban Sustainability? The Urban Reinventors, 09(3), [online]
Available at: <http://urbanreinventors.net/3/sigrist/sigrist-urbanreinventors.pdf> [Accessed 24 June 2010].
28
4.2 Provision of a good network of urban green spaces and functional

aquatic habitats
Remnant natural vegetation and urban green areas, such as parks and urban forests are the
major sources of biodiversity in and around cities. Many rare and endangered species are
found in urban near-natural remnant areas. These remaining spaces do not only exist in the
urban fringe but also in the middle of megacities. Notable examples of pristine remnants,
even partly located in the middle of a city, are, among others: the remnant forests of the
Mata Atlantica in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), the evergreen forests of the Botanical Garden in
Singapore, the National Park El Avila with its rock faces in Caracas (Venezuela), various
remnants of bush land in the Australian cities of Perth, Sydney, and Brisbane, remnants
of natural forests in York (Canada) and Portland (USA), and rock faces and outcrops in
Edinburgh (Scotland). Therefore, provision of a network of green spaces is among the
most effective instruments to preserve and enhance urban biodiversity (Niemela, 1999).
State preservation of all kinds of vegetated spaces is the most efficient way to incorporate
biodiversity in an urban environment (Roetman and Daniels, 2008). Studies and research
have shown that more nature in cities in terms of more green and tree cover result in better
environmental performances including lower temperatures, lower carbon emissions, and
higher biodiversity (Sukopp, 2004; Whitford, et al., 2001).
Yet, only allocation and designation of some open spaces as green areas are not enough
to bring more nature to cities. Green spaces should be designated and designed in relevant
ways to ensure biodiversity preservation. In this respect, provision of a variety of green
spaces is essential. Uniformity has to be avoided when creating new open spaces as part of
urban nature conservation strategies (Zerbe, et al., 2003). Urban planning must guarantee
the allocation and development of different kinds of green spaces in and around cities,
particularly using native species and the maintaining and restoring remnants of natural
areas where possible. Parks at the regional, urban, and district levels, nature parks, forests
and woods, wetlands, agricultural lands, meadows, and gardens are among the relevant
kinds of green spaces. Enhancing conservation in peri-urban areas also improves biodiversity
in inner-parts of the city (Snep, et al., 2006).
Qualities of plant and animal species in green spaces also influence the services that these
spaces provide. More native plantation and avoidance of planting alien species, when it
is possible, are argued to be the major guideline for the design of green spaces (Zerbe, et
al., 2003). Revegetation with a diversity of native plant species especially in areas where
land development is intensive is recommended as a way to increase animal biodiversity
(McKinney, 2002). In addition, sizes of green spaces have to be considered while designing
these spaces. As small parks are observed to be disturbed patches of habitat, it is argued
that they make slight contributions to preserving biodiversity in cities. In this sense, priority
needs to be given to the provision of large parks to preserve and improve urban biodiversity,
as well as connect small patches to make large connected systems (Roetman and Daniels,
2008).
The use of GIS-based gradient analysis in Shanghai confirmed the hypotheses that patch
density increases while mean and variance of patch size and landscape connectivity decrease
with the degree of landscape modification (Zhang, et al., 2004; Forman and Godron, 1986;
Godron and Forman, 1983). In Shanghai, the degree of human impact depended on the
distance from the centre. Urbanisation has resulted in dramatic increases in patch density,
29
edge density, and patch and landscape shape complexity, and sharp decreases in the
largest and mean patch size, agriculture habit area, and landscape connectivity (Zhang,
et al., 2004). Small urban areas spreading in fragmented habitats have limited impact on
connectivity in a study of 66 urban areas in the US, and that connectivity is threatened
where larger urban areas spread through previously highly connected habitats (Bierwagen,
2007).
Furthermore, critically important habitats and ecosystems have to be designated as
protection or conservation zones for an exclusive protection of species. Urban development
has to be avoided and controlled within these areas. Protection or conservation zones
should not be left as isolated and disconnected patches. Instead, a continuous network
of these protected zones together with other urban greenery has to be established. To
this aim, green belts surrounding cities and green corridors running through cities
are the effective strategies (Niemela, 1999). These belts and corridors not only prevent
urban sprawl but also ensure the connection between green and natural patches. Green
corridors, which link different habitats, allow species to find food and shelter, and to breed
and disperse (Roetman and Daniels, 2008). Effective provision of green belts and green
corridors as a strategy necessitates their mainstreaming into the relevant plans at regional
and urban levels (Breuste, 2004).
It should also be noted that increased vegetation cover and more greenery within cities are
also effective strategies for urban heat management. To reduce UHI effects, these strategies
can be pursued with urban spatial strategies.
There are numerous and incredibly diverse mechanisms currently being implemented in
cities across the globe to bring cities and nature more closely. For example, the city of
Curitiba (Brazil) has launched a 175 million USD BioCity programme, which includes the
use of native species for ornamental purposes, establishment of conservation areas with
direct involvement of civil society, revitalisation of the nearby water river basin, planning
for tree linen streets and public transportation corridors including bicycles and pedestrians
lines, as well as linear parks. Porto Alegre is another example in Brazil, with a project to
allow people to adopt trees in order to preserve its one tree per person ratio by reducing
tree city mortality. Nairobi (Kenya) holds the Managing Urban Biodiversity programme in
order to integrate the management of its renowned part into urban policy. Bonn (Germany)
is working towards integrating biodiversity into urban planning, designating 51% of urban
space as specially protected areas.
In addition to green spaces, aquatic urban habitats are also a key source of urban biodiversity.
Therefore, the sustainable design, planning and management of urban streams, canals,
rivers, ponds, impoundments, reservoirs, lakes and other water bodies, constitutes a
key instrument for improving the contribution of cities to biodiversity. For urban aquatic
habitats to preserve its basic characteristics and contribute to the adequate performance
of their associated biological communities, proper management of morphology, effluents,
including temperature, pollutants and waste, as well as water catchments should be
taken into account (Lafont, et al., 2007). One example of an integrative policy instrument
targeting the sustainable management of urban aquatic habitats is the Urban Biosphere
Reserve (UBR) approach for the city of Istanbul (Tezer, 2005). A city with over 10 million
people, Istanbul relies heavily on the Omerli Watershed for drinking water provision. Urban
development poses an acute threat to its ecological integrity, including water quality and
30
aquatic biodiversity. The Urban Biosphere Reserve (UBR) proposes a governance instrument
aiming at reconciling urban development and water quality and biodiversity conservation in
a sustainable way, through integrated urban aquatic habitat management.
Box 5: Integrating biodiversity and urban planning in Curitiba
Curitiba in Southern Brazil is synonymous of innovative city planning around the world. Since
1970s, the city has implemented a series of initiatives to become more sustainable, even before
the buzzword sustainable city became fashionable. Its master plan of 1970s started the process
of planning to a sustainable growth with actions in areas such as transportation, waste and green
areas. Curitiba was pioneer in the cost-effective Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), now used in many other
cities around the world, what makes the consumption of the fuel in the city proportionally 20%
less than the countrys average. The city is also well-known for its large extension of green areas,
more than 50 square meters per inhabitant, one of the largest rates in the world. Many of the
parks are well planned, occupying former degraded areas (like quarries) or areas under flood risk,
such as lowlands.
Following the footpath of its green area policies, the city is trying to address the biodiversity issues
and integrate it in the citys urban plan. The article 20 of its Municipal Plan of Environmental
Protection and Sustainable Development explicitly states that the city should take into account
the goals of the international protocols signed by Brazil. Thus, the city has been involved
in the implementation of international agreements, particularly the CBD. It hosted the 8th
Conference of Parties in 2006, and took the initiative together with the SCBD to host the First
Curitiba Meeting on Cities and Biodiversity in 2007. The 34 mayors who came to the meeting
launched the Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity, which is a landmark in the area.
Following its footpath in the establishment of green areas, the city now tries to address specifically
the biodiversity issues, particularly focusing on the 2010 biodiversity targets. Since 1980s, the city
gives tax breaks of up to 100% for landlords that keep more than 70% of native or old growth
forests. Owners who preserve 100% can use their development rights in other areas of the city.
Moreover, the city collects information and protects the large number of native reptiles, mammals
and fish (more than 30 species each) and its more than 200 species of birds. A series of cross
cutting programs exist to preserve water and awareness raising for biodiversity issues.
Source:
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. City of Curitiba, Brazil. [online] Available at: <http://www.cbd.int/
authorities/casestudy/curitiba.shtml#measures> [Accessed 12 July 2010].
4.3 Local sustainable production methods for biodiversity in urban

areas
The more local planning and design practices are, the better results in terms of biodiversity
preservation can be expected, as local planners are usually better informed and potentially
more flexible to react to particular challenges. Creating, transforming, and consuming local
products, appropriate to place and localities, can make cities economically and ecologically
resilient over time, and to be resilient, cities must be more self-sufficient (Hawken, 1993).
In developed countries with mature systems of regulation, urban form and city life are
subject to formal planning and permit. This is often not the case in many cities in the
so-called developing world, where much of urban life and economy goes unplanned and
unsupported by formalisation, allowing for cities to remain potentially more diverse in terms
of cultural and land uses. As the rule of interdependent adjacencies in urban ecology has it:
the more diversity, and the more collaboration between unlikely partners, the better the
31
chances for biodiversity, sustainability, and resilience (Hester, 2006). Linked to this idea is the
concept of Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs), which represent a powerful
urban design instrument for achieving local sustainability while reducing cities ecological
footprints (Viljoen, 2005).
Yet any policy instrument aiming at integrating non-human species in cities faces cultural
challenges. Cultural values and norms play a role for the propensity of local populations to
accept, embrace, or even strive toward coexistence with other species, particularly in urban
contexts (the coexistence of people and animals elsewhere considered farm or wild
animals, be they goats or monkeys, for instance, is a common phenomenon in Indian
cities).
Although the CBD does not address agricultural diversity directly per se, species and
varieties of agricultural interest (including germ plasm) and thus the agroecosystem in
general, constitute an important component of the declaration. Policy instruments focusing
on urban agro-ecological management can potentially contribute to:

Reducing ecological footprints of cities by providing local access to foods, fuels, fibres,
ornamental species, etc;

Creating spaces for in situ conservation by using traditional varieties and improving
ecological corridors;

Contributing to social inclusion and traditional knowledge preservation by involving civil
society;

Contributing to technological innovation in waste management and building design (e.g.
vertical farming).
A good example of urban agro-ecological management leading to biodiversity conservation
is Oakland (USA). The citys urban agriculture programme in public lands Cultivating the
Commons, aims at using city spaces for organic food production as a tool for access to
fresh foods, thus reducing the city ecological footprint, while contributing to environmental
education of local residents (McClintock and Cooper, 2009). In Tokyo (Japan), an agricultural
park in Adachi ward sponsored by the neighbouring ward offices and developed in
conjunction with the Japanese Organic Agriculture Association (JOAA, 2007), not only
serves as a local green space for conservation and leisure, but contributes to local food
provision at affordable prices and educational purposes.
In developing countries, urban agriculture is often associated with urban land squatting and
thus considered a socio-economic problem, not a solution. Local authorities are hesitant
to be more proactive on urban agriculture because it is largely seen as resulting from a
failure to address adequately rural development needs (Mougeot, 2006), or that the city
will lose status, as many policy-makers associate agriculture to backwardness. There is also
resistance to urban agricultural products with the fear that they can pose health risks. Yet
Havana (Cuba) is a remarkable example of developing policy instruments to increase food
security for urban residents while reducing the use of fossil fuels and oil-based fertilisers
(thus reducing CO2 emissions and ecological footprints), and making significant changes
32
in the educational curriculum to include sustainable farming disciplines (Cruz and SanchezMedina, 2003). However, given the singularity of the Cuban political system, other cities
may not easily replicate the Havana initiative.
The shrinking cities phenomenon presents an intriguing policy space of economic crisis and
ecological opportunity directly linked to urban agriculture. Whilst commonly thought to
be a developed world artefact, socio-economic decline also occurs in developing countries
where outmigration from smaller cities to larger ones leaves behind an aged population
(Haase and Schetke, 2010). Although socio-economic decline is not a desirable scenario,
this presents opportunities for biodiversity renewal. The perforating land use pattern that
accompanies urban decline leads to fragmentation, which in turn poses opportunities for
enhancing biodiversity. Most obviously, this can be thought of in terms of brown field sites
of disused factories or surplus housing units as was common in cities of the former East
Germany. Around one third of Detroits 376,000 vacant lots are being used as a resource
to regenerate the city by investing in the scale-up of urban agriculture (Huffstutter, 2009).
Skilful navigation of this area to maximise the triple bottom line could provide frameworks
for future urban sustainability.
Besides farming, sustainable aquaculture and proper urban fisheries management represent
another key instrument for cities positive contribution to biodiversity. By providing local
sources of nutritious foods, cities can not only improve local food security, and create jobs
and spaces for technological innovation, but they can also significantly reduce their ecological
footprints (Costa-Pierce, et al., 2005). Urban aquaculture is especially relevant within the
context of the developing world, especially in South and South East Asia. Aquaculture
development in cities are direct effects of job creation and food security among poor urban
households, yet major challenges related to waste management and financial investment
should not be neglected (Little and Bunting, 2005).
In addition to aquaculture, traditional sustainable management practices of aquatic
biodiversity can also be integrated into successful policy instruments for biodiversity friendly
city governance. For instance, the case of satoumi, or traditional fisheries management
in Japan, illustrates the importance of taking into account traditional knowledge when
planning coastal urban areas. While satoumi is associated to small village type of human
settlement, its ecological management model can provide valuable insights for modern day
city planning (Yanagi, 2005).
33
Box 6: Productive landscapes in Tokyo - managing diversity, reducing footprints

Tokyo, the biggest city in the world, is well-known as a
financial hub and for its intricate public transportation
infrastructure. Yet the city also hosts vast array of
agricultural activities. With around 8 thousand hectares of
cultivated land area and almost 14 thousand agricultural
households (BILA, Bureau of Industry and Labor Affairs),
Tokyo urban agriculture provides multiple ecological and
social benefits, which directly or indirectly contribute to
foster biodiversity conservation and sustainable use within
the city and beyond. Perhaps the most straightforward
contribution of urban farming is the reduction of the citys
ecological footprint. BILA (2010) estimates that, in 2005,
Tokyos vegetables and fruit production supplied the
equivalent to 680,000 peoples consumption. Furthermore,
urban production provides opportunities for minimising
pollution-related impacts on biodiversity, such as those
resulting from eutrophication or agro-chemicals. In
Musashino district, for instance, a residents association has
set up a local waste management scheme which allows for
organic domestic waste to be collected and transformed
into compost later used by local farmers (Aramaki, et al.,
2001). Likewise, agrochemical pollution is significantly
reduced across Tokyos farms: because they are adjacent to
residencies, safety is a primary concern, so producers
engage in organic agriculture or at least significantly
reduce the use of (BILA). Moreover, urban production also
contributes to the preservation of agricultural
germplasm. For instance, Nerima district, with the largest
farm area of Tokyo, grows the renowned Nerima radish,
which is a traditional variety celebrated in local festivities.
Tokyo-udo, a variety of a soft perennial of the Araliaceae
family (nanpaku-udo in Japanese) is cultivated underground
in the western part of the city. The Tokyo variety is greatly
appreciated because of its crunchy texture, ideal for
tempura. Tokyos farms also play a crucial role in raising
awareness about biodiversity conservation and its
sustainable use among city dwellers. A survey conducted
by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in 2009 shows
that 86% of citizens prefer to have farmland in the urban
Pictures: Two snap shots of Adachi Agricultural
landscape in order to secure food provision and local
Park.
biodiversity preservation. This preference is nicely
materialized in Adachi district. In 1980, the local
government founded a park to promote sustainable agriculture and interaction between farmers
and urban residents. Located between the Arakawa River and a busy elevated highway, the park
comprises 5 hectares including a rice paddy with multiple traditional varieties and more than 70
different agricultural varieties/species being cultivated all year round; in addition, there is a
greenhouse with over 100 medicinal plant species and a 300 year old traditional farm house; fresh
organic seasonal produce is daily sold at affordable prices. Under the motto Playing, learning and
living with nature the park, which follows organic agriculture principles, receives around 300,000
visitors a year, and offers a six month training program on urban organic growing.
Sources:
Aramaki, T., Suzuki, E. and Hanaki, K., 2001. Supply and demand analysis of compost for effective use of
various organic wastes in Aichi prefecture [Japan]. AFFRC, 14(4), pp. 367-371.
BILA, 2010. Multiple Statistics. Bureau of Industrial and Labor Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, Tokyo Metropolitan Government. [online] Available at: <http://www.metro.tokyo.jp> [Accessed 12
July 2010].
Nerima City Office, 2010. [online] Available at: <www.city.nerima.tokyo.jp/manabu/nogyo/taikennoen.html>
[Accessed 12 July 2010]
34
Box 7: The Satoyama initiative in Japan: traditional landscapes

for sustainable cities
More than three thousand species of plants and animals are officially threatened with extinction
in Japan, where urbanisation and industrialisation have recently played a major role in habitat loss.
Paradoxically, the abandonment of traditionally managed rural environments also poses a serious
threat to the countrys biodiversity. The intricate mosaic of rice fields, agriculture, meadows, coppice
forests, and coastal systems which have coevolved within human settlements over millennia across
the archipelago are recognised by many experts not only as models of sustainable land use but also
as biodiversity hotspots. Satoyama and satoumi are the Japanese terms referring, respectively, to
these traditional terrestrial and coastal human-nature coupled systems- also referred to as socioecological production landscapes. The Satoyama Initiative, a joint endeavour of the Ministry of
the Environment and the United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies is a multifaceted
endeavour to better comprehend these dynamic mosaics of managed socio-ecological systems
that produce a bundle of ecosystem services for human well-being (Japan SGA, 2010).
Yet what can modern metropolis learn from these traditional, sustainable natural resource
management systems? On 22 May 2010, International Biodiversity Day, an International
Symposium on Cities and Satoyama Landscapes was organised by the Japanese Institute of
Landscape Architecture was held in Nagoya (Japan) in order to explore the significance of satoyama
for sustainable urban development. According to the experts, there are multiple ways in which the
satoyama concept can contribute to the design of more sustainable cities. For instance, satoyama
landscapes in urban fringes can be fundamental areas for ecological restoration, particularly within
the context of cities with declining populations. By revitalising these productive landscapes, cities
can foster new development opportunities involving local governments, civil society organizations,
and the business community while contributing to biodiversitys sustainable use. One of the
main conclusions of the event was that rethinking peri-urban landscapes from the satoyama
perspective focusing of producing resources and energy for modern urban needs is fundamental
for the construction of the 21st Century sustainable societies.
Ishikawa prefecture is one fruitful example of efforts looking for solutions to achieving sustainability
by designing policies which contribute to the revitalisation of local, traditional production methods
to serve modern needs, such as charcoal and salt making. Moreover, urban planning and design
can also benefit from a satoyama perspective by re-conceptualising cities not as mere spaces of
economic growth dependant of faraway resources, but as centres of knowledge creation and
local natural resources management a sort of an urban satoyama, in which residents can live in
conjunction with biodiversity in managed forests, green spaces, and agricultural activities.
Source:
Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment, 2011 (forthcoming). Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment. Tokyo, UNU
Press.
4.4 Improvements in public transportation and more compact cities

Urbanisation processes have serious implications regarding biodiversity and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission levels. To successfully delink high income levels from high GHG emission,
climate-related policies should encourage energy-efficient building and urban forms which
do not depend on the use of automobiles (Hardoy, et al., 2001). Multi-functional land
uses and compact cities well connected by public transportation would lead to more
sustainable and liveable cities. However, the applicability of smart growth principles has
been questioned in the past because of its limited results in certain contexts due to striking
differences between countries in political regimes, population density, and land use (e.g.,
Kenworthy and Hu, 2000). For example, recent growth patterns in urbanising China follow
35
rather unsustainable development paths characterised by falling urban densities, largescale consumption of farmland and open space, decreasing mix in land use, prioritising of
automobile transportation, and finally, loss of the sense of place (Knaap and Zhao, 2009).
This development stands in stark contrast to some of the main principles of smart growth
and sustainable development, including the preservation of natural resources, reduced
automobile-reliance in the area of transportation, increased density in housing development,
and mixed land use zoning in planning (Ye, et al., 2005). In the developing world, where
urban spaces are expanding more rapidly, efforts should be concentrated on urban design
and planning which leads to energy efficient and compact cities.
Changing urbanisation patterns with respect to the location of residential developments
and public transportation availability are complementary instruments which can help reduce
emissions considerably; therefore, mitigating the threat of climate change on biodiversity. It is
suggested that more compact cities with advanced public transportation services can reduce
GHG emissions considerably. For instance, in New York, it has been estimated that suburban
development causes more than 300 times more damage in carbon dioxide emissions than
central city development (Glaeser, 2008). Likewise, studies including multiple cities across
developed countries show that emissions can be reduced by 30% if public transportation
options are implemented in substitution of private car use (UITP, 2006). By setting up
emissions targets and reorienting housing developments in compact, central areas, cities can
make significant contributions to cut emissions and decrease land consumption. A variety of
successful experiences exist in different cities across the world. For example, the city of San
Francisco (USA) recently approved a comprehensive ordinance establishing Climate Change
Goals and Action Plan setting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets for the city: 25%
below 1990 levels by 2017, 40% below 1990 levels by 2025, and 80% below 1990 levels
by 2050 (San Francisco City and County Government, 2008).
4.5 Increasing awareness among urban dwellers and decision-makers

Instruments to foster environmental awareness can target both the reduction in
consumption and the planning of more biodiversity friendly cities. Urban dwellers are
generally non-acceptant of attempts made by planners and scientists to protect nature in
urban environments (Breuste, 2004). Lack of environmental awareness generally brings the
development and implementation of erratic and contradictory policies such as draining of
wetlands or usage of them for waste disposal purposes (Pauchard, et al., 2006). Therefore,
special attention has to be paid to educate and inform citizens and policy-makers about the
merits of biodiversity preservation and nature protection. McKinney (2002) states that wellinformed public can act as the most important means of promoting effective conservation
of native species. In this respect, urban citizens need to be made aware of the ecosystem
services provided by nature and of the contributions they make to the quality of life in cities
(Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999).
Education programmes for the general public and school age children, together with
awareness-raising campaigns could contribute to informing people about the necessity and
benefits of biodiversity preservation. For instance, Montreal (Canada) uses nature museums
and educational activities about biodiversity conservation as a means to raise awareness.
However, these means should not be limited only to these programmes and campaigns.
Increased community participation and active involvement of citizens in the decisionmaking and implementing process for biodiversity preservation in urban areas are also
36
necessary (Breuste, 2004). City governments should develop and implement relevant ways
to include urban dwellers and their associations in nature conservation, urban planning, and
management processes.
It should also be noted that lack or inadequacy of awareness is not a problem limited to
citizens and urban dwellers. In many cases, decision-makers and even professionals are
not well aware of the merits of biodiversity preservation; therefore, in the same manner,
awareness among all stakeholders needs to be increased. Key local actors in decision-making
and decision-implementation have to be well-informed about the means and importance of
effective biodiversity conservation.
4.6 Stronger links with national and international networks

The establishment of a variety of networks in which city governments and international
organisations come together to design policy mechanisms for urban spaces as biodiversity
preservation can be an effective instrument for cooperation, knowledge sharing, critical
debate, monitoring and evaluation (indicators), and incentives (awards). Examples of
current partnerships include the IUCN Countdown 2010 working towards the 2010
biodiversity target; ICLEI and IUCNs Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) programme9, which
works intensively with a growing number of cities and local authorities (currently 28); the
Metropolis Association, which includes more than 90 cities across the globe; the Urban
Biosphere Group constituted under the UNESCO Man and Biosphere programme (MAB),
which includes scientists, planners, and policy-makers from six cities (New Orleans, New
York, Canberra, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Cape Town); and the Global Partnership for Cities
and Biodiversity10 established in Curitiba and launched in the IUCN World Congress in
Barcelona in 2008 with the aim of acting as an implementation mechanism of the CBD. The
Sustainable Urban Development Network (SUD-Net) coordinated by UN-HABITAT includes
global partners and networks to promote a multi-lateral and inter-disciplinary approach to
sustainable urban development.
Crucial for the effectiveness of partnerships is the development of monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms. For example, UN-HABITAT works together with a variety of partners in the
development of indicators of good urban governance. Such indicators aim to helping local
governments identify governance priorities and assess their progress towards improving
urban quality of life. Performance indices are also essential in facilitating city governance
efforts towards sustainable development. Recently, Singapore and other cities have tested
the City Biodiversity Index (CBI)11, which may be available soon. Another example is the
global Good Urban Governance Index which assesses the state of urban governance in the
world. The results of the index are published in the UN-HABITAT State of the Worlds Cities
report and the UNDP Global GEO Cities. The GEO Cities Assessments methodology has been
prepared to guide cities in conducting integrated environmental assessments, focusing on
the state of the local environment and the impacts of cities on the local, national, and
global environment. International awards can also be a successful mechanism for fostering
changes in urban governance leading to improving the impacts of biodiversities in cities. One
example is Kigali (Rwanda), which was awarded the 2008 Habitat Scroll of Honour Award
for innovations in building a modern city with zero tolerance for plastics, improved garbage
See more at ICLEI-LAB page at: <http://www.iclei.org/lab>
See more at: <http://www.cbd.int/authorities/Gettinginvolved/GlobalPartnership.shtml>
11
See more at SCBD page: <http://www.cbd.int/authorities/gettinginvolved/cbi.shtml>
9
10
37
collection, and a substantial reduction in crime. Starting from 1998, Kigalis government
targeted garbage collection, improved the sewage system, upgraded the slum areas, and
banned use of plastic bags. The streets and pavements were improved, and the public
transportation system was upgraded.
38
Section 5 Cities, the CBD and the Governance Challenges
5. Cities, the CBD and the Governance Challenges

Even though most of the international agreements aiming at protecting the global commons
are signed by national governments, most of the implementation is left to sub-national
governments, including city governments. As the world becomes more urbanised, cities
have strong influence and large responsibilities regarding the outcome of international
treaties as city governments in many countries have direct input on key policies such as
land-use, energy, and transportation. However, to put in practice the instruments analysed
in the section above, there are considerable governance challenges to overcome.
City governments are not sole actors that influence policy implementation at the local
level. Companies, individuals, and civil society groups are also fundamental to shape local
policies as their actions determine the outcomes of policies. Thus, policies should go beyond
government and public administration to deliver effective results. The governance at the
city level, which indeed delivers the effective implementation of international treaties, is
composed of governmental and non-governmental actors. The key point in the governance
structure is not only the capacity of individual organisations but the strength of coordination
among them.
For effectiveness, the governance structure should also connect the different levels of
governance (multi-level governance). Cities and local governments have limitations of their
authority over certain issues, which vary from country to country or within countries12. Good
interactions with higher levels of government, or even at the international level, determine
the capacity of local governments to act (Puppim de Oliveira, 2009). The same applies to
local non-governmental groups. The connections among themselves and with groups at the
different levels of governance strengthen their capacity to influence policy-making and act.
Finally, governance is crucial for the coordination at the same level in different jurisdictions;
local governments need each other for learning lessons and generating common solutions.
Many cities have directly and indirectly been engaged with the CBD process. In the policymaking process, cities can influence their national governments to adopt certain positions
in the CBD discussions. In particular, large cities are key stakeholders nationally as they
represent important constituencies at the national level. Cities have also been involved in
international policy-making process through their own international organisations. ICLEI
Local Governments for Sustainability and IUCN coordinate the Local Action for Biodiversity
programme, which among other things facilitates local authorities participation in the
CBD Conference of Parties. During the 2008 COP 9 in Bonn, ICLEI and others worked
with the City of Bonn to organise the Mayors Conference on Biodiversity that released the
Bonn Declaration, which was followed up by the launch of the Global Partnership on Cities
and Biodiversity at the IUCN World Congress in October, 2008. In January 2010, the CBD
Secretariat and other partners led the Second Curitiba Meeting on Cities and Biodiversity,
following up on the first meeting in 2007 when 34 mayors around the world signed the
Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity (ICLEI, 2010). During CBD COP 10 in Nagoya,
the City Biodiversity Summit 2010 will be held.
12
Some countries, like Japan, have different kinds of local governments with different autonomy and authority.
39
Cities are also key in the implementation of CBD through their national policies. CBD
requires the development of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP)
by each party to the Convention, and provides a framework for its implementation. The
second CBD Conference of Parties (COP 2) in 1995 provided the guidelines for the NBSAPs
and their implementation, and parties are responsible to update and periodically reassess
their biodiversity strategy plans. In tune with the governance concept, NBSAPs should be
developed and implemented with the participation of different stakeholders in society,
including local governments, as they are crucial to provide information and determine the
outcomes of the plans.
Besides the inclusion of local governments in the CBD decisions, sub-national governments,
including cities and civil society are important actors in NBSAPs as they are responsible
for many factors that influence the outcome of the implementation process. Sub-national
governments in many countries, such as Ecuador, India, and South Africa, have already
introduced aspects of the CBD in their own policies (Pisupati, 2007). The SCBD is also
developing the Plan of Action on Cities, Local Authorities and Biodiversity 2011-2020.13
Sometimes cities go ahead of the national governments in the adoption of biodiversity
policies. Even in countries that have not supported the CBD, such as the United States, there
are cities engaged in the CBD process through their own initiatives.
However, even though cities are important institutional actors to achieve the objectives of
the CBD, there are still many conceptual, institutional, and political obstacles to improve
the governance of the CBD process to incorporate cities in the main debates and actions to
achieve the CBD goals as we describe below.
5.1 Obstacles to improve the governance of the CBD

5.1.1 Cities are not in the core discussions of CBD
The discussions in CBD have been divided and focused on the different kinds of ecosystems
and access to them. This may be important to understand the state of biodiversity in the
different ecosystems as well as the main problems they face. However, some of the main
underlying indirect drivers as well as the solutions for the problems come particularly from
cities, as most of the worlds inhabitants and demands come from urban spaces. Cities need
to be in the mainstream of the CBD discussions to promote biodiversity policies in cities. This
could be done by more prominent involvement of cities in biodiversity discussions, as cities
have just recently begun (in the 2000s) engaging in the CBD process.
5.1.2 CBD implementation by national governments is limited

Many national governments have implemented policies to fulfil their commitments to
CBD (NSBTA). However, most of the policies focus on the end point, where most of the
biodiversity is, resulting in actions like the creation and maintenance of protected areas,
biosafety programmes or biodiversity inventories, which are fundamental, but does not
tackle many of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss which lies in cities. For example,
the deforestation of the Amazon is largely due to demands for products (e.g., timber and
agricultural products) from major cities in Brazil and abroad. Just recently, So Paulo has
13
40
See more at the SCBD webpage: <http://www.cbd.int/strategicplan.shtml>
adopted measures to control state imports of illegal timber. The lack of focus on city policy
may be the reason for limited CBD discussion; however, engagement of cities in the process
is also lacking.
5.1.3 CBD is still not mainstreamed in the cities agenda

CBD related issues are not optimally incorporated in the city policy agendas. The role of cities
in the implementation of CBD will depend on how policy-makers prioritise political, human,
and financial resources for biodiversity protection within and beyond the city boundaries.
Moreover, biodiversity is a cross-sectoral issue. Effective biodiversity policy implementation
and biodiversity agenda mainstreaming will involve various sectors of the government
structure (e.g., transportation, housing, land use) and civil society, so biodiversity aspects
can be considered in the different decisions.
5.1.4 Conceptual clarifications are needed to move the biodiversity agenda

There is very little conceptual understanding between the relationship of cities and biodiversity.
Many policy-makers limit the relationship of city and biodiversity to the promotion of green
areas, which may help protect biodiversity but falls short from addressing the main aspects
of the city-biodiversity relationship, including the influence of cities beyond city borders.
This is a key issue, particularly as cities develop economically, their impacts become more
widespread and reach farther places. Another aspect is how to promote urban biodiversity,
whether cities should use local species or opt for exogenous species.
5.1.5 Citizens lack awareness of the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem

services
Citizens can be a driving force to push the biodiversity agenda in cities, both for policymaking and implementation. Civil society can induce governments to introduce coherent
policies and also participate actively in the policy process as individuals or collective whole.
However, citizens have limited awareness of the biodiversity challenges and particularly
their role in fulfilling the CBD objectives. Even though many citizens may be informed of
the threats in faraway ecosystems, they do not relate those issues with their lives in the city
and their indirect influence on biodiversity loss.
5.1.6 There is a lack of proper instruments to deal with biodiversity at the city
level
There is very limited number of comprehensive instruments to deal with biodiversity and
cities, and when they do exist, there is little coordination to put them into practice. Without
adequate instruments, it is difficult for cities to implement the CBD even when they have
the political motivation and resources. Incorporation of biodiversity concerns in existing
practices, such as urban design projects or redevelopment plans, is still almost unheard of.
ICLEI-LAB is developing a guide to help practitioners in local government to plan for and
manage their local biodiversity (Berrisford, Patrickson and Mader, 2010). Lack of proper
biodiversity indicators for cities, such as the initiative of the Singaporean government (CBD,
2010), is key but the results will take time to affect policy. Instruments for controlling
the impact of cities on faraway ecosystems are in the very early stages of development.
Many of those instruments will involve the coordinated action of more than one locality.
41
Economic instruments to deal with the protection of biodiversity, which can be applied at
the city level, are still being tested, such as payment for ecosystem services and its use for
forest preservation in Costa Rica (Chomitz, et al., 1998). Change the planning process to
incorporate biodiversity issues is still a major challenge.
5.1.7 Lack of coordination among different levels of government and among

local governments for joint action
Individual cities alone have limited influence on biodiversity beyond its administrative
borders, as the final result on biodiversity conservation in some places will depend on
how adjacent localities act as well. If one city acts to protect biodiversity, for example by
controlling alien species and the others do not, the overall results may be ineffective. Thus,
more effective coordination among cities is necessary to implement CBD (even though
not sufficient). Moreover, cities and local governments may not have the autonomy or the
capacity to effectively implement policies towards CBD among themselves. On the other
hand, national governments need local governments to effectively implement policies as in
many countries, international treaties are de facto implemented by local governments.
Governance arrangements among national, local, and sub-national governments are
complex. Within the 193 Parties in the CBD, sub-national governments (municipalities,
provinces, States) have differing roles related to biodiversity issues (sometimes directly
implicated, sometimes only as conduits for federal guidelines and policies), and local
governments also play different roles depending on the degree of decentralisation of
mandates, budget and population size, tax allocations, and capacity. Political alliances
and compatibilities further add to the complexity of relationships among the national and
local levels. Additionally, there are distinct governance arrangements for overseas entities,
relatively autonomous regions and/or territories under indigenous or tribal stewardship.
Thus, due to this given nature of institutional diversity, it is hard to find the best coordination
mechanisms14.
5.1.8 Differences in the challenges among cities

Cities are diverse and differ on the kind of challenges they face towards the implementation
of CBD. Therefore, solutions, instruments, and governance mechanisms need to have
flexibility to adapt to the different contexts. Some cities possess incredible biodiversity within
their limits and surroundings and need to protect it; others have little and would need to
begin from generating biodiversity. As cities develop, they tend to move their impacts from
being directly on ecosystems within and surrounding it to affect life supporting ecosystems
in faraway ecosystems (MA, 2005). As biodiversity varies among cities, it may be difficult
to find consensus among the cities on how to act jointly to move the CBD agenda towards
implementation.
14
42
T asker-Brown (2010, forthcoming) will address how national governments can involve local authorities in the
implementation of CBD.
5.1.9 Political resistance for change at various levels

The implementation of CBD at the city level will affect the interests of certain actors at
the local level and create resistance to change. For example, many actions to protect
biodiversity within the city and its surroundings will have the resistance of some developers
and property owners who would have to sacrifice their individual interests for the greater
good. The imposition of any taxes or economic restrictions on imports, trade, or commerce
will also face opposition. Many will argue that cities are constrained and their influence
limited on biodiversity, particularly if other stakeholders do not support its protection. On
the other hand, cities consume large amounts of ecosystem services from other regions and
pay little in return. Although there are voluntary initiatives in place, there will likely be great
resistance from citizens when asked for compensation of these services.
5.2 Opportunities to move the CBD agenda forward

Although there are several obstacles for improving governance towards the implementation
of CBD, many opportunities exist for cities to move the CBD agenda forward.
5.2.1 Cities as an efficient body to protect biodiversity

The impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services is greater when city dwellers live in less
compact forms with unsustainable consumption patterns. Cities put pressure on ecosystems;
however, cities are relatively efficient spaces to settle a large population. However, efficiencies
in cities are offset by high consumption patterns, as cities tend to have higher income than
rural areas, and consequently, larger consumption power. With rampant urbanisation in
developing countries, sustainable urban consumption patterns present an opportunity for
more sustainable settlements. Efficient cities coupled with low consumption patterns can
be an efficient way to protect biodiversity.
5.2.2 Cities involvement to tackle global problems and development of new

instruments
The CBD has a decision to recognise the role of cities and local authorities for the
implementation of the agreement, yet cities do not have a relevant role in the CBD process,
though they are increasingly getting involved in the discussions in the COPs and other
forums. In other international processes such as the UNFCCC, cities are more engaged
and becoming influential in the decisions and implementation, and this can help build
momentum in the CBD and biodiversity agenda for cities. Moreover, as cities become more
involved, new ideas and tools emerge through their own experience in tackling biodiversity
issues, facilitating the adoption of the agenda by a larger number of cities. For example,
Singapore and other cities are trying to develop a set of biodiversity indicators for cities.
Curitiba has a tax incentive to landowners who protect natural forest in their properties.
43
Box 8: Effective management of urban biodiversity through relevant instruments in the

city of Edmonton
City of Edmonton in Canada is known for innovative approaches to protect and manage its
biodiversity, especially by means of ecological network approach. The city harbours the largest
linear park (7.400 ha.) in North America, namely North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravines
System. Besides, there are also wetlands and forests in the city, all together enabling a diversity of
native plants and wildlife species to flourish. The main target of the local efforts in Edmonton is
to protect the remaining natural areas (river valley, ravines, wetlands, etc.) as connected ecological
network, which refers to a single, integrated natural system. More specifically, the city government
attempts to protect core natural areas, and to connect them by linkages in order to conserve
plant and wildlife species and ecological functions. Linkages, which are vegetated patches, are
the crucial instruments in Edmonton to create green networks and biodiversity corridors. Some of
these linkages are natural, such as natural areas and parks, naturalised storm water management
facilities. On the other hand, there are also semi-natural linkages consist of recreation parks,
cemeteries, school yards, power line corridors, etc.
To these aims, the city employs a range of conservation tools including plans, policies and programs,
all of which set strategic directions for effective conservation. Natural Areas Systems Policy (NASP)
is one the key local policy frameworks. NASP intends to incorporate environmental and ecological
considerations into the economic and spatial considerations. In a similar manner, a new planning
tool titled Ecological Design Report aims to ensure that ecological principles are integrated
into urban development plans to reduce the ecological impacts of urban development. Moreover,
City of Edmonton does not rely solely on the introduction and implementation of policies, plans
and programs to preserve biodiversity. City government also gives high attention and priority to
awareness-raising and involvement of public into decision-making and implementation processes.
City of Edmonton engages citizens in the process of biodiversity protection through public
consultation, representation on municipal advisory committees, etc.
Results in terms of public participation and community awareness have been remarkable. 50
biodiversity-related initiatives were launched in the city, half of which are led by community groups
and by partnerships between citizens and city government. It also noted that Edmontons local
people value nature and natural habitats in the city by recreating in the city parks and river valley
and ravines. However, the progress on the actual preservation of biodiversity harbouring patches
and areas appears to be slow. The State of Edmontons Natural Areas Report1 shows that for every
2 ha of natural area in Edmontons tablelands that were protected between 1995 and 2005, 3 ha
were lost.
Sources:
ICLEI, 2008. City of Edmonton, Canada: Planning for a functional ecological network. Local action for
biodiversity, a series of local cases. [online] Available at: <http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/template/project_
templates/localactionbiodiversity/user_upload/LAB_Files/City_Case-studies/Edmonton_Final.PDF>
[Accessed
26 June 2010].
ICLEI, 2008. City of Edmonton, biodiversity report 2008. Local action for biodiversity: An ICLEI initiative,
Edmonton, [online] Available at: <http://www.edmonton.ca/environmental/documents/Environment/
Edmonton_Biodiversity_Report_2008.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
44
Box 9: Taking stock of biodiversity in the city the city biodiversity index
In order for cities to monitor their level of biodiversity and progress on its conservation, it is
necessary to have a framework which can be used to aid planning and governance. The Global
Partnership on Cities and Biodiversity has developed a self-assessment tool known as the City
Biodiversity Index (CBI) under the leadership of Singapore and the SCBD. The index comprises of
indicators split into in three categories which enables cities to (i) monitor their level of biodiversity,
(ii) understand the provision of ecosystem services within the city and (iii) develop their capacity
to manage these resources within the city. As such it combines a range of physical and biological
survey such as number of native species, natural connected areas, green areas, number of alien
species in the city and an assessment of governance structure and activity (alignment of local to
national policies; number of projects and outreach programs) to come up with a score, which can
be used as a reference for future updates.
Given the huge bio-geographical variation in cities and their fundamental level of natural
biodiversity, it may not be useful to compare scores in a scientific sense but rather in a relative
sense to understand cities progress in conserving their natural biodiversity and ecosystem services
whilst developing policies and strategies to achieve these aims. More details on the CBI including
the users manual on how to conduct the assessment can be found in the source reference.
Source:
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010. The Singapore Index on Cities' Biodiversity (CBI). [online] Available at:
<http://www.cbd.int/authorities/gettinginvolved/cbi.shtml> [Accessed 12 July 2010].
5.2.3 Urban dwellers tend to be more educated and environmentally sensitive

City dwellers are still not sufficiently aware of the biodiversity challenges and their role
as citizens to protect biodiversity. However, urban citizens tend to be more educated and
inclined to support biodiversity conservation, which can facilitate the process of raising
awareness on biodiversity issues, as they also tend to be more politically active. For example,
urban dwellers are more supportive of elephant conservation compared to their rural
counterparts in Sri Lanka (Bandara and Tisdell, 2003). As many key decision-makers live
in cities, education can be the key to change their attitudes and behaviours, both through
raising awareness as urban citizens or by political pressure.
5.2.4 Policies can be more effective at the city level because of the scale
As cities are dense in population, scaling up of initiatives such as awareness raising campaigns
or law enforcement mechanisms can be an efficient and powerful way to implement
CBD initiatives. Awareness raising campaigns would reach a wide audience in cities; the
enforcement of legislations is also more effective in cities. Thus, if CBD implementation
initiatives have a larger focus on cities, their efficiency and impact can be greater.
5.2.5 Opportunities for win-win situations between biodiversity conservation

and other benefits
Biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems present immense benefits for citizens. For
example, preserved mangroves or forests in cities can be an effective buffer for floods
during heavy rains, reducing risks and losses. A better understanding and more widespread
access to information of these benefits and win-win situations can raise interest among
cities to implement their biodiversity agenda.
Spencer Environmental Ltd. (2006), State of Natural Areas Report, City of Edmonton.
45
Box 10: Urban agriculture in Accra, Ghana

Ghanas capital, Accra, is also its largest city and one of the most vibrant metropolises in West Africa. Accras population is 1,695 million people, and its metropolitan region1 has over 2.7 million,
growing at a rate of 3.36% per year.2
Urban agriculture3 is practiced in Accra for a long time, as European colonisers cultivated vegetables
in public spaces and private gardens. Urban farming also helped to supply allied forces during the
Second World War (Asomani-Boateng, 2002). There was an estimated 1,000 ha under urban
agriculture mostly maize and vegetables, plus thousands of backyard vegetable gardens in mid
2000s. More than 1,000 farmers have their incomes dependent on urban agriculture and many
more in the chain (Cofie, et al., 2005). It is well know the benefits of urban agriculture for providing
jobs, income and food security to the growing cities in the developing world, particularly in Africa,
as well as an opportunity to recycle some of the organic waste (Maxwell, et al., 2000; Drechsel and
Dongus, 2010). However, one of the most promising areas urban agriculture can contribute to the
sustainability of urban areas is the potential to tackle global problems such as biodiversity loss and
climate change. More than that, there are tremendous opportunities to win-win or co-benefits:
Urban agriculture can provide the biodiversity and climate friendliness together with all the other
economic, social, and local environmental benefits, if carried out adequately. In and around urban
agricultural sites there are plenty of biodiversity, such as different kinds of plants, insects, reptiles,
birds, and reptiles. Biodiversity can help to enhance strategies for pest control, especially if the
agriculture is organic, and help to pollinate crops and other benefits.
As urban agriculture practices grow in cities around the world, it adds to the complexity of cities
landscapes. If it is carried out properly, urban agriculture can contribute to increase the biodiversity
of cities, besides providing many other economic, social, and environmental benefits. It can add
to the cities amount to green areas, connecting patches of natural biodiversity (such as parks),
with the advantage that agricultural sites are self-maintained by farmers, and reducing the Heat
Island Effect.
Sources:
AMA-Accra Metropolitan Assembly, 2010. [online] Available at: <http://www.ama.ghanadistricts.gov.gh>
[Accessed13 July 2010].
Asomani-Boateng, R., 2002. Urban cultivation in Accra: An examination of the nature, practices, problems,
potentials and urban planning implications. Habitat International, 26(4), pp. 591-607.
Cofie, O. et al., 2005. A narrative on urban agriculture in Accra metropolis, IWMI, Accra.
Drechsel, P.and Dongus, S., 2010. Dynamics and sustainability of urban agriculture: examples from sub-Saharan
Africa. Sustainability Science, 5, pp. 6978.
Maxwell, D. et al, 2000. Urban livelihoods and food and nutrition security in greater Accra, Ghana. Washington
DC: IFPRI, Ch. 1 and 2, pp.1-25.
Comprising of Accra plus Ga East, Ga West and Tema/Ashaiman

AMA, 2010.
3
Urban agriculture can be practiced in three basic forms: in the backyard gardens generally for own
consumption,or more commercially in larger open allotments or in peri-urban neighbourhoods.
1
2
46
5.2.6 Convergence of the movements on biological diversity and urban

planning
The convergence of biological diversity and the urban planning process opens opportunities
for both to affect one another in other words, biological conservation playing an important
role in urban planning and vice versa. This facilitates dialogues between the two policy
spheres and support for implementation of the CBD agenda. However, a more detailed
conceptual grasp on how to integrate both agendas and the development of tools are
necessary, for policy-makers at different levels could put them into practice.
Box 11: Effective management of urban biodiversity through relevant instruments in
the city of Cape Town
The City of Cape Town is one of the only three cities in the world designated as a biodiversity
hotspot. The city is the home for unique biodiversity and for two UNESCO world heritage sites;
one of them is a national park. The City of Cape Town is located within the Cape Floral Kingdom,
which is the smallest of only six floral kingdoms in the world.
The importance of the City of Cape Town in terms of biodiversity is not only limited to the existence
of biodiversity harboring sites within the city. Cape Town is also known for its active role and local
strategies and actions to ensure adequate biodiversity conservation.
Cape Town is suffering from the loss of habitat due to certain urban processes, such as urban
development and sprawl. Therefore, the major challenge for biodiversity conservation in Cape
Town is to avoid urban footprints over the unique vegetation types and habitats. Integrated
Management Environmental Policy adopted in 2001 and Biodiversity Strategy adopted in 2003 are
the two major policy frameworks for the current biodiversity-related actions and strategies in City of
Cape Town. Urban planning has given a special place and attention within these policy frameworks
and actions. The city government applied scientific conservation planning techniques to give a
priority to the preservation of remaining biodiversity sites, and to produce a conservation plan,
known as the Biodiversity Network.
As for the administrative dimension of conservation actions, conservation planning and
management were consolidated under the Biodiversity Management Branch, which is a part of
Environmental Resource Management Department of the city government. The intention behind
such an administrative reorganisation is to overcome the obstacles to effective conservation of
biodiversity and to facilitate the implementation of the local strategies and policies. Another aim
of this move is to mainstream biodiversity-related issues into city governance.
The City of Cape Town also recognises the importance of partnerships among local, national and
international stakeholders and actors to define the objectives, methods and tools of biodiversity
conservation. In this respect, the city is one of the major founders of Cape Action for People and
Environment (CAPE), which is a public-private partnership programme to ensure the conservation
of biodiversity in a way to deliver benefits to local people. Furthermore, as an active member of
ICLEI, the City of Cape Town initiated the ICLEIs Local Action for Biodiversity Project. The city is also
the host to the ICLEI Africa Secretariat and to several other offices of international organisations,
such as International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Sources:
ICLEI, 2008. City of Cape Town, South Africa: World heritage within a city border. Local action for biodiversity,
a series of local cases. [online] Available at: <http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/template/project_templates/
localactionbiodiversity/user_upload/LAB_Files/City_Case-studies/CapeTown_Final.PDF> [Accessed 26 June
2010].
ICLEI, 2008. City of Cape Town, biodiversity report 2008. Local action for biodiversity: An ICLEI
initiative, City of Cape Town, South Africa, [online] Available at: <http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/
EnvironmentalResourceManagement/publications/Documents/Biodiversity%20Report%20CCT-LAB%202008.
pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
6. Conclusion
47
Section 6 Conclusion
6. Conclusion
Cities are fundamental players if we want to achieve the objectives of the CBD, as most of
the world population lives in cities today and many of the important decisions that affect
cities are made in cities. Cities are also some of the biggest beneficiaries of biodiversity
and ecosystem services, as most of their citizens and economic activities depend on those
services from faraway areas. However, their involvement in the CBD process is still limited in
comparison to their potential contribution and amount of benefits they get from biodiversity
and ecosystem services. There are many conceptual underpinnings and governance
obstacles to overcome; there is a need to create new and adapt existing city planning and
management instruments to properly deal with biodiversity.
From an ecological perspective, there are two different, yet interrelated kinds of instruments
through which cities can make positive contributions to the CBD. First are those aiming
at reducing cities ecological footprints, and second are those aiming at restoring urban
ecosystems. Although deeply interconnected, the former does not necessarily include
the latter, and vice versa. For example, reduced consumption levels or increased recycling
reduces ecological footprints, but these can be achieved without making any significant
local environmental improvements. Likewise, cities can improve the local biodiversity by
creating new urban parks for leisure activities using local species, however at the same time,
if the per capita consumption of meat is increased, the ecological footprint in the regional or
global scale is not reduced. Yet in certain cases, both types of instruments go hand-in-hand.
For instance, in transportation-related impacts, improving urban mobility systems contribute
both to improved local ecosystems and to reduced global atmospheric impacts. Given the
complexity of tackling ecological causes of diversity loss by urban governance mechanisms,
efforts should be directed toward designing and implementing synergetic instruments, in
other words, developing mechanisms which contribute to both the reduction of ecological
footprints of cities while improving the ecology of the urban fabric.
In addition to the ecological dimensions, managing social and cultural aspects is also
of paramount importance for creating successful instruments. Equity, transparency,
accountability, security, civic engagement, and citizenship must be integrated in any
governance transformation aiming at contributing to the CBD. In this respect, the inclusion
of civil society and stakeholder group in local governmental policy initiatives is vital for
effective biodiversity management (Elander, et al., 2005). Furthermore, since interest groups
and local stakeholders have a direct influence in biodiversity management through their
own land use and management practices of green spaces (Barthel, et al., 2005), policy
mechanisms should be designed and implemented in conjunction with social initiatives to
create adaptive and polycentric networks.
Urban planning can serve as an effective instrument to reduce the adverse impacts of
urbanisation on the natural environment and facilitate such change and improvement.
Nevertheless, it is not enough to rely on the current approaches and practices of urban
planning as they generally lack deep ecological understanding and knowledge. Baseline
information of physical properties and biotic characteristics of biotope patches in and
around cities (Niemela, 1999) would provide the sound scientific knowledge base for
urban planning decisions. City governments can greatly benefit from an urban planning
approach mainstreamed with an ecological understanding in addressing biodiversity related
problems.
48
Section 6 Conclusion
There is growing participation of local governments and city representatives in the CBD process
and an increasing recognition of the importance of cities for the effective implementation
of CBD. However, there is room for improvement, as biodiversity policies in sub-national
governments in cities are still very much lagging. Even though there is considerable effort
on the part of some cities to mainstream biodiversity, the engagement of cities is still low
compared to other global issues, such as climate change. Moreover, if we consider the three
levels of interaction between cities and biodiversity (urban biodiversity, regional biodiversity,
and global biodiversity), much of the efforts have been put or limited to urban biodiversity,
which sometimes is mixed with green areas. The influence on regional biodiversity has
been the concern of some cities in their policies to avoid sprawl, but most of the time for
different reasons, such as the need to revitalise city centres. Finally, the global influence on
biodiversity is still in its early stages of conceptualisation at the local level. Nevertheless, the
interest of cities in the biodiversity agenda is moving fast, and there are ample opportunities
to bring cities as effective actors in the implementation of CBD. This will also require a large
effort for collective action for results; we will need the cooperation of a large number of
cities, and/or greater support at other levels of governance.
Urbanisation is ambiguous to biodiversity. The globalised nature of agriculture and supply
chains means that threatened ecosystems could exist at land or sea, far away from any city.
To achieve the aims of CBD, it is crucial to understand the systemic levers of our governance
and institutions. This could take the form of enlightened city planning or strengthened
enforcement of institutions (e.g. tracking of criminal networks and prohibiting the trade
and transfer of endangered species to restaurants and health centres).
Cultural issues related to consumption can be an underlying factor that drives these changes.
Modern cities are not only ecologically unsustainable but socially constructed as spaces
outside of nature. Many city residents only experience very humanised environments
throughout their life, so there is the perception that cities can function with little regards
to the environment outside of the city. Despite the fact that the sustainability of human
life ultimately depends on the Earths ecosystems and the services they provide, peoples
perception about the impact of increasing urbanisation and biodiversity loss may not
go beyond what is happening to certain emblematic species (e.g. pandas). This cultural
paradigm of the city as defeating nature is also shaping the minds of planners, decisionmakers, mass media, etc. Only by deconstructing this cultural notion, effective instruments
can be designed.
49
References
References
Albers, H.J. and Grinspoon, E., 1997. A comparison of enforcement of access restrictions between
Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve (China) and Khao Yai National Park (Thailand). Environmental
Conservation, 24(4), pp.351-62.
Alberti, M., 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science
Review, 28, pp.168-92.
Altizer, S. et al., 2006. Seasonality and the dynamics of infectious diseases. Ecology Letters, 9(4), pp.467-84.
Bandara, R. and Tisdell, C., 2003. Comparison of rural and urban attitudes to the conservation of Asian
elephants in Sri Lanka: empirical evidence. Biological Conservation, 110(3), pp.327-42.
Barthel, S., Colding, J., Elmqvist, T. and Folke C., 2005. History and local management of a biodiversity rich,
urban cultural landscape. Ecology and Society 10(2): 10.
Berrisford, K., Patrickson, S. and Mader, A., 2010 (forthcoming). Local Action for Biodiversity (LAB) Local
Government Biodiversity Management Guidebook. ICLEI-LAB.
Bierwagen, B.G., 2007. Connectivity in urbanizing landscapes: the importance of habitat configuration,
urban area size, and dispersal. Urban Ecosystems 10(1), pp.29-42.
Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S., 1999. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, pp.293301.
Bonan, G.B., 2002. Ecological Climaterology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, C.A., 2006. Urbanisation and the ecology of wildlife diseases. Ecology and Evolution, 22(2), pp.95102.
Branigan, T., 2009. Droughts and floods threaten Chinas economic growth, forecaster warns. guardian.
co.uk, [online] (Last updated 13.22 BST on 30th June 2009). Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/
world/2009/jun/30/china-climate-change-warning> [Accessed on 25 September 2009].
Breuste, J., 2004. Decision making, planning and design for the conservation of indigenous vegetation
within urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning 68(4), pp.439-52.
Bromilow, C. 2001. Problem Plants of South Africaa guide to identification and control of more than 300
invasive plants and other weeds. Pretoria: Briza Publications.
Bullard, R, D. ed., 2007. Growing Smarter: Achieving Livable Communities, Environmental Justice, and
Regional Equity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
CBD, 2010. Convention on Biological Diversity, Cities and Biodiversity, Convention on Biological Diversity.
Newsletter. 1(1).
CBD, 2007. Cities and biodiversity: engaging local authorities in the implementation of the convention on
biological diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity. [online] Available at: <http://www.cbd.int/doc/
meetings/cop/cop-09/information/cop-09-inf-10-en.doc> [Accessed on 26 June 2010].
Ceballos-Lascurain, H., 1996. Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas: The state of nature-based tourism
around the world and guidelines for its development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University; International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); The World Bank; and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
(CIAT). 2004. Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project (GRUMP), Alpha Version: Coastlines. [online] Palisades,
NY: Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), Columbia University. Available at: <http://
sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw> [Accessed 23 March 2010]
Cernea, M.M., 2000. Impoverishment risks and reconstruction: a model for population displacement and
resettlement. In: UN Symposium on Hydropower and Sustainable Development, Beijing, China 27-29
October 2000. [online] Available at: <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_cernea_
population_resettlement_backgroundpaper.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
50
References
Cernea, M.M. and Guggenheim, S.E. eds., 1993. Anthropological Approaches to Resettlement: Policy,
Practice, and Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.
Chambers, C.M., Chambers, P.E. and Whitehead, J.C., 2008. Economic growth and threatened and
endangered species listings: A VAR analysis. Working Papers 0804: University of Central Missouri,
Department of Economics & Finance. [online] Available at: <http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0804.
pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
Chomitz, K.M., Brenes, E. and Constantino, L., 1998. Financing environmental services: The Costa Rican
experience. Publication Number 10. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 157-169.
CNU, 1996. New Urbanism Charter. Congrees for the New Urbanism [online] Available at: <http://www.
cnu.org/charter> [Accessed 12 July 2010].
Cohen, J.E. and Small, C., 1998. Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by
altitude. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(24), pp.14009-14.
Conservation International, 2007. Biodiversity Hotspots Resource Maps and GIS data, [online] Available
at: <www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/resources/Pages/maps.aspx> [Accessed 23 March 2010]
Costa-Pierce, B.A., Desbonnet, A., Edwards P. and Baker D., 2005. Urban Aquaculture. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.
Courtland Robinson, W., 2003. Risks and rights: The causes, consequences, and challenges of developmentinduced displacement. SAIS Project on Internal Displacement. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Cruz, M.C. and Sanchez-Medina, R., 2003. Agriculture in the City: A Key to Sustainability in Havana, Cuba.
Kingston, Jamiaca: Ian Randle Publishers/ Ottawa: IDRC.
Davidoff, P., 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(4),
pp.331-38.
Davis, D.S., 2000. The consumer revolution in Urban China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Diegues, A.C.S., 1994. O Mito Moderno da Natureza Intocada. Sao Paulo, Brazil: NUPAUB USP.
Dietmar, S., 2005. Making the best of two worlds: Rural and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by
nontimber forest products from the Bolivian Amazon. World Development 33, pp.1473-90.
Eaton, D. and Hilhorst, T., 2003. Opportunities for managing solid waste flows in the peri-urban interface
of Bamako and Ouagadougou. Environment and Urbanization 15, pp.53-63.
EIA, 2009. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United
States-2008. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington DC. [online] Available at: <http://www.eia.doe.
gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/pdf/0573%282008%29.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
Elander, I., Lundgren, E., Malbert, B. and Sandstrm, U.G., 2005. Biodiversity in urban governance and
planning: examples from Swedish cities. Planning Theory & Practice 6(3), pp.283-301.
Elmqvist, I., et al. 2003. Response Diversity, Ecosystem Change, and Resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 1(9), pp.488-94.
FAO, 2006. Food and Agricultural Organization, Livestocks long shadow: environmental issues and options.
[online] Available at: <http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM> [Accessed: 26 June
2010].
FAO, 2008. Food and Agricultural Organization, WISDOM for Cities: Analysis of wood energy and
urbanization using WISDOM methodology. [online] Available at: <ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/
i0152e/i0152e00.pdf> [Accessed: 26 June 2010].
Fiallo, E.A. and Jacobson, S.K., 1995. Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents
towards conservation in Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation, 22(3), pp.241249.
51
References
Flores-Palacios, A. and Valencia-Diaz, S., 2007. Local illegal trade reveals unknown diversity and involves a
high species richness of wild vascular epiphytes. Biological Conservation, 136, pp.372-387.
Florida, R., Gulden, T. and Mellander, C., 2008. The rise of the mega-region. Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society, 1(3), pp.459-476.
Foley, J.A., 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use, Science, 309(5734), pp.570574.
Folke, C., Jansson, A., Larrson, J. and Costanza, R., 1997. Ecosystem appropriation by cities. Ambio, 26,
pp.167-172.
Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley.
Gadda, T. and Marcotullio, P., 2007. The influence on Tokyos post-war marine seafood consumption
patterns. UNU-IAS Working Paper No. 145, [online] Available at: <http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_
centre/145%20Tatiana%20Gadda%20and%20Peter%20Marcotullio.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
Glaeser, E.L., 2008. The greenness of cities: carbon dioxide emissions and urban development. Working
paper. Harvard Kennedy School.
Godron, M. and Forman, R.T.T., 1983. Landscape modification and changing ecological characteristics.
In: Mooney, H.A. and Godron, M. eds., Disturbance and Ecosystems: Components of Response. Berlin:
Springer, pp.12-28.
Gomez, F., Gaja, E. and Reig, A., 1998. Vegetation and climatic changes in a city, Ecological Engineering,
10(4), pp.355-360.
Gulezian, P.Z. and Nyberg, D.W., 2010. Distribution of invasive plants in a spatially structured urban
landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, In press.
Haase, D. and Schetke, S., 2010. Potential of biodiversity and recreation in shrinking cities: contextualization
and operationalization, In: Mueller, N., Werner, P. and Kelcey, J.G. eds., Urban Biodiversity and Design,
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 518-538.
Hanova, J. and Dowlatabadi, H., 2007. Strategic GHG reduction through the use of ground source heat
pump technology. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 044001.
Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D. and Satterthwaite, D., 2001. Environmental problems in an urbanizing world: finding
solutions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications.
Hawken, P., 1993. The ecology of commerce. New York: Harper Business.
Hester, R.T., 2006. Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Howard, E., 1902. Garden cities of tomorrow. London: Faber and Faber.
Huffstutter, P.J., 2009. Investors see farms as way to grow Detroit. Los Angeles Times, 27 December. [online]
Available at: <http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/27/nation/la-na-detroit-farms27-2009dec27?pg=3>
[Accessed 6 March 2010].
Ingram, G.K., 2009. Foreword. In: Y. Song and C., Ding, eds., Smart Urban Growth for China. Cambridge
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. vii-viii.
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, 2009. Towards Aichi/Nagoya: Second Curitiba Declaration
on Local Authorities and Biodiversity. [online] Available at: <http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/template/
project_templates/localactionbiodiversity/user_upload/Bio-Roadmap/Second_Curitiba_Declaration.pdf>
[Accessed 27 February 2010].
IPCC, 2007a. Climate Change 2007 - Mitigation of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group III to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [online] Available at
<http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter5.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
IPCC, 2007b. Climate Change 2007 - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [online]
Available at:
<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
52
References
IPCC, 2007c. Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [online] Available at:
<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
JOAA, 2007. Japanese organic agriculture association journal. Tokyo, Japan.
Kenworthy, J. and Hu, G., 2000. Threat to global survival? A case study of land use and transportation
patterns in Chinese cities. [online] Available at: <http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/casestudies/Case_
Studies_Asia/china/chinese.html> [Accessed 24 September 2009].
Kinver, M., 2010. Illegal bushmeat `rife in Europe. BBC News, 17 June. [online] Available at: <http://www.
bbc.co.uk/news/10341174> [Accessed 3 July 2010].
Knaap, G. and Zhao, X., 2009. Smart growth and urbanization in china: Can an American tonic treat the
growing pains of Asia? In: Y. Song and C. Ding, eds. Smart Urban Growth for China, Cambridge MA:
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 1-7.
Lafont, M., Marsalek, J. and Breil, P., 2007. Urban aquatic habitats: characteristics and functioning. In:
I., Wagner, J. Marshalek and P. Breil, eds. Aquatic Habitats in Sustainable Urban Water Management:
Science, Policy and Practice. Leiden: Taylor and Francis/Balkema, pp. 9-24.
Landsberg, H. E., 1981. The Urban Climate. Academic Press: New York.
Little, D.C. and Bunting, S.W., 2005. Opportunities and constraints to urban aquaculture, with a focus on
south and southeast Asia. In: B.A., Costa-Pierce, A., Desbonnet, P., Edwards and D., Baker, eds., Urban
Aquaculture. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Louis, V.R. et al., 2005. Temperature-driven Campylobacter seasonality in England and Wales. Applied
Environmental Microbiology, 71(1), pp. 85-92.
MA, 2005. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, Ecosystems and human wellbeing: current state and trends
assessment. Island Press: Washington DC. Available at <http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/
Condition.aspx> [accessed: 26 June 2010].
MacKinnon, J., MacKinnon, K., Child, G. and Thorsell, J., 1986. Managing protected areas in the tropics.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN): Gland.
McClintock and N., Cooper, J., 2009. Cultivating the Commons: An Assessment of the Potential for Urban
Agriculture on Oaklands Public Land. Department of Geography University of California: Berkeley.
Available at: <http://urbanfood.org/docs/Cultivating_the_Commons.pdf> [accessed: 26 June 2010].
Mcdonald, R.I., Kareiva, P. and Forman, R.T.T., 2008. The implications of current and future urbanization
for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 141(6), pp. 1695-1703.
McGranahan, G., Balk, D. and Anderson, B., 2007. The rising tide: assessing the risks of climate change
and human settlements in low elevation coastal zones. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), pp. 17-37.
McIntyre, N.E., Knowles-Yanez, K. and Hope, D., 2000. Urban ecology as an interdisciplinary field: differences
in the use of urban between the social and natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 4(1), pp. 5-24.
McKinney, M., 2002. Urbanisation, biodiversity and conservation. BioSciece, 52(10), pp. 883-890.
McNeely, J.A. ed., 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected
Areas. Caracas, Venezuela, 10-21 February 1992. Gland: IUCN and WWF.
Midmore, D.G. and Jansen, H.G.P., 2003. Supplying vegetables to Asian cities: is there a case for peri-urban
production? Food Policy, 28(1), pp. 1327.
Mougeot, L.A.J., 2006. Growing better cities: urban agriculture for sustainable devlopment. Ottawa: IDRC.
Musaoglu, N., Tanik, A. and Kocabas, V., 2005. Identification of land cover changes through image
processing and associated impacts on water reservoir conditions. Environmental Management, 35(2),
pp. 220-230.
53
References
Mwampamba, T.H., 2007. Has the woodfuel crisis returned? Urban charcoal consumption in Tanzania and
its implications to present and future forest availability. Energy Policy, 35(8), pp. 4221-4234.
Nash, R., 1978. Nature in world development: patterns in the preservation of scenic and outdoor recreation
resources. The Rockfeller Foundation: New York.
Niemela, J., 1999. Ecology and urban planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8(1), pp. 119-131.
NOAA-NGDC, 2010. Version4 DMSP-OLS Nighttime Lights Series. [online] Available at: <http://www.ngdc.
noaa.gov/dmsp/downloadV4composites.html> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
O Globo, 2010. Caminhos da Amrica: cidades tentam frear destruio de matas e recuperar reas verdes.
O Globo Newspaper, 22 March.
Omoto, T. and Aono, Y., 1990. Estimation of change in blooming dates of cherry flower by urban warming.
Journal of Agrobultural Meteorology, 46(3), pp. 123-129 (in Japanese).
Pauchard, A., Aguayo, M, Pena, E. and Urrutia, R., 2006. Multiple effects of urbanization on the biodiversity
of developing countries: the case of a fast-growing metropolitan area (Concepcion Chile). Biological
Conservation, 127(3), pp. 272-281.
Pearson, C., Pilgrim, S. and Pretty, J. eds. 2010. Urban Agriculture: Diverse Activities and Benefits for City
Society. London: Earthscan Ltd.
Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L. and Grove, J.M., 2004. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for
integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4),
pp. 369-384.
Pisupati, B., 2007. Effective Implementation of NBSAPs: Using a Decentralized Approach: Guidelines for
Developing Sub-National Biodiversity Action Plans. UNU-IAS Policy Report, UNU-IAS: Yokohama.
Puppim De Oliveira, J.A., 2009. The implementation of climate change related policies at the subnational
level: an analysis of three countries. Habitat International, 33(3), pp. 253259.
Qian, W., 2009. Top emergency declared for worst drought in 50 years. Chinadaily.com.cn, 5 February.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/05/content_7449737.htm>
[Accessed 29 September 2009].
Rawat, G.S., 1997. Conservation status of forests and wildlife in the eastern ghats, India. Environmental
Rees, W., 1997. Urban ecosystems: the human dimension. Urban Ecosystems, 1(1), pp. 63-75.
Rees, W. and Wackernagel, M., 2008. Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable- and why
they are key to sustainability. In: E. Shulenberger, et al. eds. Urban Ecology: An International Perspective
on the Interaction Between Humans and Nature. Berlin: Springer, pp. 537-555.
Roetman, P.E.J. and Daniels, C.B., 2008. Biodiversity in urban developments. Your development online
resources. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems: Canberra. [online] Available at: <http://yourdevelopment.org/
factsheet/view/id/51> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
Rosenzweig, C. et al., 2005. Characterizing the urban heat island in current and future climates in New
Jersey. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(1), pp. 51-62.
San Francisco City and County Government, 2008. San Francisco City Ordinance 81-08 on Climate Change
Goals and Action Plans, Amendment to the San Francisco Environment Code. [online] Available at: <http://
www.livablecity.org/campaigns/documents/SF%20climate%20ordinance%202008.pdf> [Accessed 26
June 2010].
Sumel, I. and Kowarik, I., 2010. Urban rivers as dispersal corridors for primarily wind-dispersed invasive tree
species. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3-4), pp. 244-249.
SCBD, 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal.
54
References
Shochat, E. et al. 2005. From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Ecology and
Evolution, 21(4), pp. 186-191.
Snep, R.P.H. et al., 2006.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X4HG69WD-1&_user=5870764&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_alid=1407173636&_rdoc=1&_
fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5798&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000055303&_version=1&_
urlVersion=0&_userid=5870764&md5=064a9aa1450a8699b2d33586fbbbfe7e>.
Biological
Solecki, W.D. et al., 2005. Mitigation of the heat island effects in urban New Jersey. Global Environmental
Change Part B: Environmental Hazards, 6(1), pp. 39-49.
Sontag, M.S. and Bubolz, M.M., 1996. Families on small farms: case studies in human ecology. East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press.
Sukopp, H., 2004. Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(4),
pp. 347-355.
Sukopp, H. and Werner, P., 1982. Nature in cities: a report and review of studies and experiments concerning
ecology, wildlife and nature conservation in urban and suburban areas. Nature and Environment Series
28. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Tacoli, C. ed., 2006. The Earthscan Reader in Rural-Urban Linkages. Earthscan: London.
Tasker-Brown, J., 2010 (forthcoming). Supporting Local Action for Biodiversity: The Role of National
Governments. UN-HABITAT and CBD.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. [online] Available at: <http://www.teebweb.
org> [Accessed 20 July 2010].
Tezer, A., 2005. The urban biosphere reserve (ubr) concept for sustainable use and protection of urban
aquatic habitats: case of the Omerli watershed, Istanbul. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 5, pp.311-322.
Thomas, C.D., Cameron, A., Green, R.E., Bakkenes, M. and Beaumont, L.J., 2004. Extinction risk from
climate change. Nature, 427, pp.145-148.
Tickle, A., Fergusson, M. and Drucker, G., 1995. Acid rain and nature conservation: a preliminary study of
protected areas at risk from acidification. World Wildlife Fund International: Gland.
Tisdell, C. A., 1995. Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local communities, Environmental
Conservation, 22 (3), pp.216-222.
UITP, 2006. The role of public transport to reduce GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency. (position
paper) [online] European Union: International Association of Public Transport. Available at: <http://www.
uitp.com/eupolicy/positions/2006/03/Climate_Change_EN.pdf> [Accessed 26 June 2010].
UNEP and UN-HABITAT, 2005. Ecosystems and Biodiversity The Role of Cities. United Nations Environment
Programme and United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Brochure.
UN-HABITAT, 2008. State of the Worlds Cities 2008/2009: Harmonious Cities. United Nations Human
Settlements Programme. London & Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
UN-HABITAT, 2010. State of the Worlds Cities 2010/2011: Cities for All: Bridging the Urban Divide. United
Nations Human Settlements Programme. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
UNO, 1998. Human Development Report 1998: Consumption for Human Development. United Nations
Organization. New York, USA: United Nations.
UNO, 2007. United Nations Millennium Development Goals Report 2007. United Nations Organization.
New York: United Nations.
Viljoen, A., 2005. Continuous Productive Urban Landscapes (CPULs): Designing Urban Agriculture for
Sustainable Cities. Architectural Press.
55
References
Whitford, V., Ennos, A.R. and Handley, J.F., 2001. City form and natural process-indicators for the ecological
performance of urban areas and their application to Merseyside, UK. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57,
pp. 91-103.
Wilkie, D.S. and Carpenter, J.F., 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: an assessment of impacts and
options for mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 8, pp. 927-955.
Witting, R., 2004. The origin and development of the urban flora of Central Europe. Urban Ecosystems, Vol.
7, No. 4, pp. 323-329.
World Bank, 2008. Whats Driving the Wildlife Trade? A Review of Expert Opinion on Economic and Social
Drivers of the Wildlife Trade and Trade Control Efforts in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam.
(discussion paper) [online] The World Bank: Washington DC. Available at: <http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTEASTASIAPACIFIC/Resources/226262-1223319129600/wildlife_fullreport.pdf>
[Accessed 26 June 2010].
World Energy Council, 2007. Transport Technologies and Policy Scenarios. The World Energy Council:
London, UK. [online] Available at: <http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/809.asp> [Accessed 26
June 2010].
Xinhua News Agency, 2009a. China drought leaves 5m short of water. Chinadaily.com.cn, 23 August.
[online]
Available
at:
<http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-08/23/content_8605057.htm>
Xinhua News Agency, 2009b. Torrential rains leave three dead in SW China city. Peoples Daily Online,
21 September. [online] Available at: <http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90882/6763525.html>
Yanagi, T., 2005. Sato-Umi: new concept for the coastal sea management. Rep Res Inst Appl Mech. Kyushu
Univ 129, pp.109-111.
Ye, L., Mandpe, S. and Meyer, P.B., 2005. What is smart growth?-really?. Journal of Planning Literature,
19 (3), pp. 301-315.
Yusuf, S. and Nabeshima, K., 2008. Optimizing urban development. In: Yusuf, S. and Saich, T. eds, China
Urbanizes: Consequences, Strategies, and Policies. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, pp.1-40.
Zerbe, S., Maurer, U., Schmitz, S. and Sukopp, H., 2003. Biodiversity in Berlin and its potential for nature
conservation, Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, pp.139-148.
Zhang, L., Wu, J., Zhen, Y. and Shu, J., 2004. A GIS-based gradient analysis of urban landscape pattern of
Shanghai metropolitan area, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69 (1), pp.1-16.
56
The United Nations University System
The United Nations University System

The United Nations University (UNU) comprises research and training institutes and programmes located in 12
countries around the world. The UN University system is led and administered by headquarters based in Tokyo,
with outposts in Bonn, Kuala Lumpur, New York, and Paris. The academic work of the UNU is carried out by a
global system of research and training institutes and programmes.
UNU Research and Training Centres or Programmes (RTC/Ps)

UNU-BIOLAC The UNU Programme for Biotechnology in Latin America and the Caribbean (Caracas,
Venezuela)
URL http://www.biolac.unu.edu/
UNU-CRIS The UNU Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies (Bruges, Belgium)
URL http://www.cris.unu.edu/
UNU-EHS The UNU Institute for Environment and Human Security (Bonn, Germany)
URL http://www.ehs.unu.edu/
UNU-FNP The UNU Food and Nutrition Programme for Human and Social Development (Ithaca, New
York, USA)
URL http://www.fnp.unu.edu/
UNU-FTP The UNU Fisheries Training Programme (Reykjavik, Iceland)
URL http://www.unuftp.is/
UNU-GTP The UNU Geothermal Training Programme (Reykjavik, Iceland)
URL http://www.unugtp.is/
UNU-IAS The UNU Institute of Advanced Studies (Yokohama, Japan)
URL http://www.ias.unu.edu/
UNU-IIGH The UNU International Institute for Global Health (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia)
URL http://www.iigh.unu.edu/
UNU-IIST The UNU International Institute for Software Technology (Macao, China)
URL http://www.iist.unu.edu/
UNU-INRA The UNU Institute for Natural Resources in Africa (Accra, Ghana)
URL http://www.inra.unu.edu/
UNU-INWEH The UNU Institute for Water, Environment and Health (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada)
URL http://www.inweh.unu.edu/
UNU-ISP The UNU Institute for Sustainability and Peace (Tokyo, Japan)
URL http://www.isp.unu.edu/
UNU-MERIT The UNU Maastricht Economic and Social Research Training Centre on Innovation and
Technology (Maastricht, Netherlands)
URL http://www.merit.unu.edu/
UNU-WIDER The UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (Helsinki, Finland)
URL http://www.wider.unu.edu/
UNU Administrative and Academic Service Units

UNU Centre Tokyo (Japan)
URL http://www.unu.edu
UNU Centre Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)
The UNU Vice-Rectorate in Europe (UNU-ViE; Bonn, Germany)
URL http://www.vie.unu.edu/
The UNU Office at the United Nations (New York, USA)
URL http://www.ony.unu.edu/
The UNU Office at UNESCO (Paris, France)
URL http://op.unu.edu/
57
58
Figure 1: The biodiversity hotspots of the world (red outlines) from Conservation International
(Conservation International, 2007) overlaid on the distribution of global population (top
Center for International Earth Science Networks Global Rural-Urban Mapping Project;
CIESIN, et al., 2004) and on the distribution of night-time lights (DMSP-OLS from NOAANGDC, 2010)
59

Jose Antonio Puppim de Oliveira, Osman Balaban, Christopher Doll, Raquel
Moreno-Penaranda, Alexandros Gasparatos, Deljana Iossifova, and Aki Suwa
Urbanisation creates new challenges for biodiversity conservation. As large part of the
concentration of the worlds population gradually moves from rural to urban areas, there
are changes in the link between human activities and biodiversity, and consequently to the
way we should think about biodiversity conservation policies. Scarce attention has been
given to understand how to make cities more biodiversity friendly, not only within, but
particularly in faraway places.
Understanding how cities can create better governance mechanisms to effectively help
in the preservation of the biodiversity within and beyond the city boundaries is the key
to implement the directives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This report
argues the need to study the conceptual underpinnings of the relationships among city,
governance, and biodiversity to create the basis for policies at the global, national, and local
level, as well as provide some practical insights on the way to move the biodiversity agenda
in cities forward.
United Nations University

Institute of Advanced Studies
6F, International Organizations Center
Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1 Minato Mirai
Nishi-ku, Yokohama 220-8502, Japan
Tel +81 45 221 2300
Fax +81 45 221 2302
Email unuias@ias.unu.edu
URL http://www.ias.unu.edu
printed on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

certified paper using soy-based ink
ISBN 978-92-808-4517-4

UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNU-IAS Cities and Bio E-Ver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNU-IAS Policy Report

Cities, Biodiversity and Governance:

UNU-IAS Policy Report

Cities, Biodiversity and Governance:

Copyright United Nations University, 2010

United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies

ISBN 978-92-808-4516-7 (pb)

Cover Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com/Alija, Central Park

4.5 Increasing awareness among urban dwellers and decision-makers........................ 36

and urban planning..................................................................................... 47

1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularly

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

2. Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

2.1 A brief history of cities in the environment

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

2.2 Converging views in the movements for biological conservation and

Home to 213 endemic terrestrial vertebrate species.

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

a non-equilibrium paradigm recognising system openness, disturbance as part of system

Section 2 Processes of Urbanisation and Biodiversity

ecology, and building practice. (Charter of New Urbanism, CNU, 1996)

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3. Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.1 Biodiversity and urban well-being: provision of ecosystem services

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.2.1 Habitat destruction

3.2.3 Introduction of alien species

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.2.5 Climate change

Linking biodiversity loss to urban processes

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.3.1 Urban development

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.3.2 Production and consumption in cities

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.3.3 Trade and transportation

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

3.3.4 Heat stress related to the urban heat island effect

Section 3 Linking Cities and Biodiversity

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4. Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4.2 Provision of a good network of urban green spaces and functional

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4.3 Local sustainable production methods for biodiversity in urban

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Box 6: Productive landscapes in Tokyo - managing diversity, reducing footprints

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Box 7: The Satoyama initiative in Japan: traditional landscapes

4.4 Improvements in public transportation and more compact cities

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4.5 Increasing awareness among urban dwellers and decision-makers

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

4.6 Stronger links with national and international networks

Section 4 Instruments for Improving the Contribution of Cities to the CBD

Section 5 Cities, the CBD and the Governance Challenges

5. Cities, the CBD and the Governance Challenges

1. Introduction: How are cities related to biodiversity, particularly

2.2 Converging views in the movements for biological conservation and

4.2 Provision of a good network of urban green spaces and functional

4.3 Local sustainable production methods for biodiversity in urban

5.1.5 Citizens lack awareness of the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem

5.1.7 Lack of coordination among different levels of government and among

5.2.2 Cities involvement to tackle global problems and development of new

5.2.5 Opportunities for win-win situations between biodiversity conservation

5.2.6 Convergence of the movements on biological diversity and urban